On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:15:08AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > Why are you putting the locking db on a GFS filesystem anyway. That's > > madness ! > > The reason is to have a poor-man's-clustered-samba by placing lock and > private dir on a common share and have the relocated smbd/nmbd pairs > access them. E.g. relocating within the cluster is effectively like > restarting smbd/nmbd on a node. > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:37:32PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > As I said, I bet GFS isn't POSIX complient. Don't put locking > > tdb's on anything but local filesystems. > > Well, GFS claims to be POSIX and local-like in any way. Maybe it is > just a bug in GFS?
It turns out that's exactly what it is:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169039
GFS is in fact a local fs. It is just local for several SAN nodes at
the same time using dlm for coordinating locking. GFS can even be used
as a non-clustered local fs, just like ext3, where the same bug hits
it.
I hope the bug gets fixed soon. Otherwise, does this hit more than
locking.tdb?
Thanks!
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgp6EiyC7TYHu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
