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 at gmail.com> 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 at gmail.com> 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 at centos.org > > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- --- Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.--