AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20080703154937.1cbfc030@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<ed.kwan@onstor.com>,<sandrine.boulanger@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0ABCF610@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:50:52 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Ed Kwan" <ed.kwan@onstor.com>
Cc: "Sandrine Boulanger" <sandrine.boulanger@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: Escalation defect TED 24451
Message-ID: <20080703155052.42ab862f@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0ABCF610@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06CD8B7D@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0ABCF610@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The standard is what does windows server do?  Since windows users are
supremely used to trying things multiple times to get them to work,
this can't really be that big of a deal.

BTW what do you mean it needs to go into 3.3/4.0?  Where do you think
it's going?


On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:37:25 -0700 "Ed Kwan" <ed.kwan@onstor.com> wrote:

> Max just fixed this (change 29921), and it needs to go into 3.3/4.0.
> I ran into the same issue this morning trying to save the Escalation
> spreadsheet to mightydog (error messages was "disk full").  Fired up
> wireshark to get a trace, but the next save worked.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Goldick
> > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 5:23 PM
> > To: Ed Kwan; Andy Sharp
> > Subject: Re: Escalation defect TED 24451
> > 
> > AFAIK this works fine in the dev branch
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ed Kwan
> > To: Andy Sharp
> > CC: Jonathan Goldick
> > Sent: Sat Jun 28 16:57:50 2008
> > Subject: RE: Escalation defect TED 24451
> > 
> > The "fix", which I put into patch 3.2.0.6, is backing out the
> > original changes.  See perforce change 29883.
> > I don't see any problem other than a small performance hit in a
> specific
> > workflow.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andy Sharp
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:50 PM
> > > To: Ed Kwan
> > > Cc: Jonathan Goldick
> > > Subject: Re: Escalation defect TED 24451
> > >
> > > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:34:11 -0700 "Ed Kwan" <ed.kwan@onstor.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Andy,
> > > >
> > > > Take a look at TED 24451 when you have a chance.  The code
> > > > changes that caused this problem originated in the dev branch,
> > > > so I
> believe
> > > > Cougar has this issue also.  The "fix" that I've chosen for LSI
> and
> > > > UIT is to back out the original NULL byte write optimization and
> the
> > > > subsequent buffer leak fix.  You may want to talk to Jonathan
> and/or
> > > > Max regarding a "real" fix for Cougar.
> > >
> > > Hey Ed,
> > >
> > > Thanks for bringing this to attention.  I read the notes for the
> > > defect, and I don't get the proposed change.  If this is fixed in
> > > 3.2.0.6 why back out those changes? I seem to remember without
> > > those changes other bad things happen in other work flows.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > a
