On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 08:24 +0200, Heiko Schroeter wrote: > > Is 'failout' not ok ?
That's up to you. Failout means that if an OST becomes unreachable (because it has failed or taken off the network, or unmounted or turned off, etc.) then any I/O to get objects from that OST will cause a client to get an EIO (Input/Output error). Failover means that a client that tries to do I/O to a failed OST will continue to try (forever) until it gets an answer. A userspace sees nothing strange, other than an I/O that takes, potentially, a very long time to complete. > Actually we like to use it because we like to use the > lustre system as a huge expandable data archive system. I'm not sure what using failout has to do with that. > If one OST breaks > down and destroys the data on it we can restore them. Again, failout/failover really has nothing to do with this. It has everything to do with what a client does when it sees an OST fail. > Actually i do expect the client not tho hang any job that acesses the file > systerm in this moment. If that needs an EIO and KILL of that process this is > fine by me. Well, no kill should be necessary. An EIO should terminate an application. Unless it has a retry handler for EIOs written into it. That's not very common. EIO usually should be interpreted as fatal. b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
