X-Sylpheed-Account-Id:1
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
X-Sylpheed-Encrypt:0
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	22670	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E01BD3155@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:00:47 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "John Culp" <john.culp@onstor.com>
Cc: "Maxim Kozlovsky" <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>, "Jonathan Goldick"
 <jonathan.goldick@onstor.com>, "dl-Software" <dl-software@onstor.com>,
 "dl-QA" <dl-qa@onstor.com>, "Narayan Venkat" <narayan.venkat@onstor.com>,
 "Joshua Goldenhar" <joshua.goldenhar@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: Enabling/Disabling NFS shares
Message-ID: <20071025170047.528ec9f4@ripper.onstor.net>
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E01BD3155@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The release "vehicle" will be the one that can be seen in several ads in
that timeless classic of a movie, _Robocop_.  You know what I'm sayin'.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:47:42 -0700 "John Culp" <john.culp@onstor.com>
wrote:

> So what is the release vehicle?  When can we expect it?  
> 
> Just kidding. :-)
> 
> 
> John Culp
> 972-523-4287 cell
> 940-239-7489 office
> 
> Sent from my Blackberry 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maxim Kozlovsky
> To: Andy Sharp
> CC: Jonathan Goldick; dl-Customer Service Group; dl-se; dl-Software;
> dl-QA; Narayan Venkat; Joshua Goldenhar Sent: Thu Oct 25 16:06:40 2007
> Subject: RE: Enabling/Disabling NFS shares
> 
> Now that we have a volunteer to implement the command, I think it
> definitely should stay.
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Andy Sharp
> >Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 4:03 PM
> >To: Maxim Kozlovsky
> >Cc: Jonathan Goldick; dl-Customer Service Group; dl-se; dl-Software;
> >dl-QA; Narayan Venkat; Joshua Goldenhar
> >Subject: Re: Enabling/Disabling NFS shares
> >
> >A separate command for both protocols has many uses outside of bug
> >protection.  We should have a command for both, absolutely.  In
> >S-X (tm) it will be trivial to implement, so no worries there ~:^)
> >
> >On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:39:00 -0700 "Maxim Kozlovsky"
> ><maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I think it was useful when we entered a crash loop because of a
> >> bug in NFS. Disabling a share prevents a client from connecting
> >> and crashing the system. Since the occurrences of NFS crash loops
> >> became much less frequent, the command lost most of its usefulness.
> >>
> >> (I think we should preserve it, since when we will go to systemx we
> >> are bound to have some crash loops. :-) )
> >>
> >> _____________________________________________
> >> From: Jonathan Goldick
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:34 PM
> >> To: dl-Customer Service Group; dl-se; dl-Software; dl-QA
> >> Cc: Narayan Venkat; Joshua Goldenhar
> >> Subject: Enabling/Disabling NFS shares
> >>
> >> This question is in the context of SystemX but about the current
> >> product.
> >>
> >> We have a command to enable/disable NFS shares but not one for CIFS
> >> shares.  "nfs disable share [all | PATHNAME]"
> >>
> >> Does anyone ever use these commands given that they do not prevent
> >> CIFS users from connecting and CIFS has no equivalent?  I'm trying
> >> to determine whether to preserve the functionality in SystemX
> >> given the limited value.
> >>
> >> Unless I hear otherwise, this is going away in SystemX.
> >>
