On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:35:32AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:31:35PM +0200, David Weber wrote:
Am Freitag, 26. Juli 2013, 10:14:59 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +0200, David Weber wrote:
Looking again at flock() I see it
Am Montag, 29. Juli 2013, 12:52:00 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:35:32AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:31:35PM +0200, David Weber wrote:
Am Freitag, 26. Juli 2013, 10:14:59 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at
flock() which is quite similar to fcntl(). I
attached a patch which makes libvirt use flock() *instead* of fcntl()
and it seems to work.
NFS on the contrast only supports fcntl() so it should be configurable
which lock type to use.
I'm not very experienced with locking
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +0200, David Weber wrote:
Looking again at flock() I see it cannot support locking of ranges, only
the entire file. This makes it unsuitable as a replacement for libvirt's
use of fcntl() I'm afraid. I can only sugggest you configure OCFS2 so
that it
Am Freitag, 26. Juli 2013, 10:14:59 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +0200, David Weber wrote:
Looking again at flock() I see it cannot support locking of ranges, only
the entire file. This makes it unsuitable as a replacement for libvirt's
use of fcntl()
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:31:35PM +0200, David Weber wrote:
Am Freitag, 26. Juli 2013, 10:14:59 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +0200, David Weber wrote:
Looking again at flock() I see it cannot support locking of ranges, only
the entire file. This makes
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:07:44PM +0200, David Weber wrote:
SUSE advises to use indirect leases which we also want to avoid:
https://www.suse.com/documentation//sled11/book_kvm/?page=/documentation//sled11/book_kvm/data/sec_libvirt_storage_locking.html
to fcntl(). I
attached a patch which makes libvirt use flock() *instead* of fcntl()
and it seems to work.
NFS on the contrast only supports fcntl() so it should be configurable
which lock type to use.
I'm not very experienced with locking, so would such a patch be
acceptable or do you see
indirect leases.
OCFS2 instead supports flock() which is quite similar to fcntl(). I
attached a patch which makes libvirt use flock() *instead* of fcntl()
and it seems to work.
NFS on the contrast only supports fcntl() so it should be configurable
which lock type to use.
I'm not very
fcntl() locks which
aren't supported by OCFS2 with the o2cb cluster stack and we want
to avoid using indirect leases.
OCFS2 instead supports flock() which is quite similar to fcntl(). I
attached a patch which makes libvirt use flock() *instead* of fcntl()
and it seems to work.
NFS
libvirt use flock() *instead* of fcntl()
and it seems to work.
NFS on the contrast only supports fcntl() so it should be configurable
which lock type to use.
I'm not very experienced with locking, so would such a patch be
acceptable or do you see possible problems
11 matches
Mail list logo