lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1b/7] dlm: core locking
    On 2005-04-28T09:39:22, Daniel McNeil <daniel@osdl.org> wrote:

    > Since a DLM is a distributed lock manager, its usage is entirely for
    > locking some shared resource (might not be storage, might be shared
    > state, shared data, etc). If the DLM can grant a lock, but not
    > guarantee that other nodes (including the ones that have been kicked
    > out of the cluster membership) do not have a conflicting DLM lock, then
    > any applications that depend on the DLM for protection/coordination
    > be in trouble. Doesn't the GFS code depend on the DLM not being
    > recovered until after fencing of dead nodes?

    It makes a whole lot of sense to combine a DLM with (appropriate)
    fencing so that the shared resources are protected. I understood David's
    comment to rather imply that fencing is assumed to happen outside the
    DLM's world in a different component; ie more of a comment on sane
    modularization instead of sane real-world configuration.


    Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>

    --
    High Availability & Clustering
    SUSE Labs, Research and Development
    SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business

    -
    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: 2005-04-28 18:51    [W:0.028 / U:0.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site