Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
hmmm...
bad address is EFAULT
[EFAULT]
Bad address.
there is no reference to EFAULT in s3fs.cpp, so, must be coming from somewhere
else
and s3fs is just transparently passing it thru
have not seen this one before!
Original comment by rri...@gmail.com
on 5 Aug 2009 at 6:28
Interesting. Are you unable to reproduce the error?
I can give you access to a server where it is reproduceable, if that would help
you.
The interesting part is that the error message varies, just as it does for
Issue 64.
For example, I tried the 'rm -rf' again and got this:
rm: cannot remove `foo': Level 3 reset
Any ideas why these error messages are always changing?
Thanks.
Original comment by jvi...@gmail.com
on 5 Aug 2009 at 6:55
have not tried reproducing; neither have I heard this problem from anyone else
does everything else work? i.e., you can read/write files just fine?!? its just
that
the only thing that does not seems to work is rm -rf ?
could amazon acl factor into the issue? (i.e., any possiblity that the acls were
changed on the bucket/objkects for read-only?
Original comment by rri...@gmail.com
on 5 Aug 2009 at 8:12
Yes, everything else is working fine. The 'rm -rf' isn't a showstopper, just a
curious oddity.
If I manually remove the file within, then rmdir the directory, everything
works.
$ rm foo/bar
$ rmdir foo
However, the 'rm -rf' does not. Strange, isn't it?
Here is the mount command I'm using:
s3fs -o default_acl=public-read <bucket> <mountpoint>
Original comment by jvi...@gmail.com
on 5 Aug 2009 at 8:29
another thought: did u use another s3 tool to manipulate the bucket contents?
if so
then that might cause troubles
either way: try using another s3 tool such as jets3t cockpit to inspect the
contents
of the bucket; perhaps there is a 'orphaned' s3 object in the folder that is
causing
s3fs to think the folder is not empty
Original comment by rri...@gmail.com
on 5 Aug 2009 at 9:41
Closing out this old issue and cannot duplicate. Please try the latest version
of the software. If the issue is still present, please open a new issue.
Original comment by dmoore4...@gmail.com
on 29 Oct 2010 at 4:48
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
jvi...@gmail.com
on 5 Aug 2009 at 5:48