J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:06:49PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:45:37PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
In practice, it seems that both the unlock_ip and unlock_pathname
methods that revoke locks are going to be called together. The two
separate calls therefore seem a little redundant. The reason we *need*
both is that it's possible that a misconfigured client could grab locks
for a (server ip, export) combination that it isn't supposed to.
That is not a correct assumption. The two commands (unlock_ip and
unlock_pathname) are not necessarily called together. It is ok for
local filesystem (ext3) but not for cluster filesystem where the
very same filesystem (or subtree) can be exported from multiple
servers using different subtrees.
Ouch. Are people really doing that, and why? What happens if the
subtrees share files (because of hard links) that are locked from both
nodes?
It is *more* common than you would expect - say server1 exports
"/mnt/gfs/maildir/namea-j" and server2 exports
"/mnt/gfs/maildir/namek-z".
I believe it, but how hard would it be for them to just set those up as
separate partitions?
The answers that I normally hear is that "then why would I bother to use
a cluster filesystem ?" .... Wendy
