[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Fake SCSI devices
    On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Helge Hafting wrote:
    >This because each machine have a disk cache, and can't know when the
    >other is writing to the disk. Cache contents will be wrong after such a
    >You probably can't snoop a scsi bus, and even that would be open to

    Correct. If _anything_ ever writes to the disk, then other systems cache
    would no longer be consistent. There would need to be a cache controller
    to inform all the other machines of a write -- thie would have to be tied
    almost directly into the scsi code as the write command must have been
    completed (sent to the drive and acknowledged as done) before telling
    everyone else to invalidate their cache for that block.

    This would end up looking alot like NFS with the cache messages instead of
    RPC calls. Bastardized systems like this already exist -- they are
    expensive. It's been my experince that they don't work very well (all
    things concidered.) Granted, it gets alot of "neat trick" points.

    >If you want both to mount the same partition for writing (or one writing
    >and another simultaneous read-only) please write a new filesystem where
    >each machine
    >ask all the others for permission (and invalidate their cached blocks)
    >before each write.

    Ever head of AFS? this is very close to what it's cache manager does.
    (Although, writes are feed back to the server immediately and then it
    informs all the referencing caches the data changed. It's bloody mess
    on a slow (read: dialup) connection.)


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.020 / U:3.624 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site