Hi Pete, > Then on top of this you add some sort of verification protocol to > make sure that file is up-to-date, right? A server with an old > config file exits with error?
Without some form of server-to-server communication, verification of this config file is probably not doable. I was not envisioning adding the verification protocols at the server. I have vastly simplified the problem by relying on admins to ensure that the files are kept uptodate, which admittedly is quite unrealistic. Instead, the clients verify whether all servers have the same config files which we recently added to the fs-add state machine and optionally verify at the time of PVFS_isys_fs_add. > Regarding your idea about SIGHUP, and forcing a config file re-read. > This would be implemented by sending a message to all servers that > they should locally read their fs.conf again? And verify against > the one provided by the root server? > Admins are expected to edit one of the fs.conf files, copy it to all > the server machines, then SIGHUP the root server? Admins are expected to edit the fs.conf files, copy it to all servers (or if it was on an NFS volume edit just once), and have a new mgmt tool which causes all servers to re-read the config files and have clients do the verification.. > Sorry to be tedious, but reading the earlier mails on the topic, I > obviously did not understand some fundamental aspects of your > design. Nope, my bad. I should have described things in more detail. Does this sound ok to you guys? If it is too simplistic a view of the problem, then please let me know what you would like to see to mitigate the configuration problems :) thanks! Murali _______________________________________________ Pvfs2-developers mailing list Pvfs2-developers@beowulf-underground.org http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
