This is to respond to the root version part of the message below. I have built root_v2.25.03 on solaris and after a mess that I discussed in a previous mailing to this list, the build finally succeeded. After receiving the message below this morning, I started to install root_v2.25.03 on the pii's (ie @sys=linux or something like that), but I ran into a quota problem. I have e-mailed Betty to see if we could increase quota, but if we can't, we will have to start deleting old versions of brat and root. That will mess up people who have pointers to these which I have learned from experience that whenever there is one of those programs, someone has a pointer to it and is using it. Anyway, if Betty succeeds in doubling our afs quota, 2.25.03 will appear on the pii's shortly thereafter. If not, we should be thinking about what to delete. I am sure many people have opinions on this. Kris p. s. We are in between NIMROD runs, so I am doing stuff on BRAHMS!!! Flemming Videbaek wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Flemming Videbaek" <videbaek@bnl.gov> > To: <brahms-dev-l@bnl.gov> > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 7:46 AM > Subject: Brat et misc. > > > > > > connect: Connection refused at > > /afs/rhic/brahms/BRAHMS_CVS/CVSROOT/dolog.pl line 280. > > > > > > when I commit to CVS from NBI.ms > > I have seen this too and mentioned to Kris > > This happens from several machnies, it works ok from rcf.,, from the piis > > but not from say rcas000. > > I suspect it has to do with access priv. to the bonsai database on pii3 ? > > > > > > As to the ROOT 2.25/03 being "*the* version of ROOT these days" Ian is > > > right if he's taking about ROOT, but not so in BRAHMS - yet. Flemming, > > > Kris, when will we upgrade? > > > > I do believe that the time has come to upgrade - I think we agreed to wait > > until after the run (which one ? - > > the RHIC or the NIMROD at TAMU). I would hope that Kris can take the time > > following the TAMU run > > to have 25.03 installed for both linux and solaris so we can make the > > switch. > > > > > > And now to something somthing completly different ... No 1 ... A Larch > > > (sorry - couldn't resist). Does anyone what the status of AFS on Linux > > > is? In particular, how does Redhat 6.1/6.2 fare with AFS? I believe > > > there's a fix for the SMP problem, but a part from that, is there any > > > problems? And does anyone know _when_ IBM will release "IBM AFS" in > > > OpneSource? (there a almost delayed a month now). Thanks for any > > > info.g > > > > This was an importanbt issue for RCT in the spring before the RHIC run. > All > > linux at RCF was upgraded to 6.1 > > following a long discussion on AFS. The brief answer is , to the best of > my > > knowledge without my notes, > > RH6.1 + transarc AFS is fine with SMTP (at least 2 processors) > > RH6.1 + arla AFS in additon is also fine and work with NFS-3 (speedier > > access to disks) > > > > I am not sure in regard to RH 7 and transarc afs. It is our intention to > > try out 'arla' which has worked well > > on rcf (all rcas and crs nodes). > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 12:18:34 EDT