![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thursday 28 April 2005 13:19, Joel Becker wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > > reduce the latency for this case. My gut feeling, though, is that I'd > > still prefer to see the DLM doing its work properly, cluster-wide in > > this case, as precaution against accidents if we get inconsistent states > > on disk leading to two nodes trying to create the same lock at once. > > Experience suggests that such things *do* go wrong, and it's as well to > > plan for them --- early detection is good! > > And unacceptably slow. With LKM_LOCAL, OCFS2 approaches ext3 > speed untarring a kernel tree, because everything under the toplevel > directory is a candidate for LKM_LOCAL. Network communication may be > fast, but pagecache operations are even faster. I don't know by how > much, but I bet if we turned off LKM_LOCAL in the OCFS2 DLM, we'd lose a > lot of speed. Why don't you try it, and post the numbers? Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-04-29 08:12 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||