On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Burkhard Linke
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> How does CephFS
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Burkhard Linke
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> How does CephFS handle locking in case of missing explicit locking control
>> (e.g. flock / fcntl)? And
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Burkhard Linke
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> How does CephFS handle locking in case of missing explicit locking control
> (e.g. flock / fcntl)? And what's the default of mmap'ed memory access in
> that case?
>
Nothing special.
Hi,
On 05/04/2016 09:15 AM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Burkhard Linke
wrote:
Hi,
On 03.05.2016 18:39, Gregory Farnum wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Burkhard Linke
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Burkhard Linke
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 03.05.2016 18:39, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Burkhard Linke
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we have
Hi,
On 03.05.2016 18:39, Gregory Farnum wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Burkhard Linke
wrote:
Hi,
we have a number of legacy applications that do not cope well with the POSIX
locking semantics in CephFS due to missing locking support
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Burkhard Linke
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have a number of legacy applications that do not cope well with the POSIX
> locking semantics in CephFS due to missing locking support (e.g. flock
> syscalls). We are able to fix
Hi,
we have a number of legacy applications that do not cope well with the
POSIX locking semantics in CephFS due to missing locking support (e.g.
flock syscalls). We are able to fix some of these applications, but
others are binary only.
Is it possible to disable POSIX locking completely in