thanks steve. seems like we are in the same boat.
I was wondering if there was an alternative to cachefs like
http://ccache.samba.org/
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Steven Tardy <sjt5atra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html-single/Storage_Administration_Guide/#rhel6storage-whatsnew
>
> fs-cache is a tech preview(Zero support from redhat).
>
> Tried cachefs on a few servers(don't remember if it was rhel 6.1 or 6.2 at
> the time), had problems (server hanging/unresponsive), asked redhat for
> support, was denied support, removed cachefs.
>
> Unsure if newer versions are more stable.("fool me once" kind if thing)
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 2014, at 7:48 AM, Rita <rmorgan466@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > has anyone been using cachefs with 6.x series? i have tried using it but
> i
> > keep getting hung processes after 2 weeks.
> >
> > ATM, running 6.3 but was curious if its more stable on Centos 6.5?
> >
> > --
> > --- Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.--
> > _______________________________________________
> > CentOS mailing list
> > CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
--
--- Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.--
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
