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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans