Wilko Bulte wrote:
> I wonder how Tru64 is doing it. IIRC V5.0 Tru64 can do a cluster filesystem.
> A CFS must have solved the coherency issue in some way.
The CFS filesystem in Tru64 is the same one (more or less, it has been
modified for Tru64) that's in the SCO/Compaq NonStop Clusters product
As Kirk McKusick wrote ...
> Mounting on more than one system is generally problematical unless
> you are willing to have all systems read-only. The problem is cache
> coherence between the machines. If one changes a block, the other
> machines will not see it. Basically, this is why we have the
To: Kirk McKusick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mounting one FS on more than one system
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 04 Dec
Regarding a filesystem mounted on multiple boxes, check out DFS; there's
a spec available from the Open Group in the UK for $58.00:
http://www.opengroup.org/pubs/catalog.saved/p409.htm
If you allow multiple R/W mounts, it's certainly not trivial. As Kirk said,
you need a strong coherency
Allowing for cache writeback delays, is the speed of direct-to-shared-disk
fast enough that using NFS as an "abstraction" layer would be faster than
any network extant?
Would it be as fast? would the effort to make this work exceed the cost
of making real networks exist?
It would seem that ther
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mounting one FS on more than one system
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 04 Dec 1999 10:10:20 MST."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 199
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith writes:
>The sticking issue that we discussed was allowing more than one system to
>mount a given filesystem;
I pressume we're talking R/W mounts here, since a R/O mount obviously
would not be a problem.
With UFS/FFS there are significant meta-data ca
(moved to -current where there are more eyes that are interested)
> P.S. Mike, at comdex I spoke to you some about clustering two
> computers and one RAID array, remember? You mentioned that
> someone had pursued that avenue some, perhaps not to a working
> solution, but I don't remember who.
