lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1b/7] dlm: core locking
On 2005-04-29T04:25:24, Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> But just because fencing is supposed to happen in an external component,
> we can't wave our hands at it and skip the analysis. We _must_ identify the
> fencing assumptions and trace the fencing paths with respect to every
> recovery algorithm in every cluster component, including the dlm.

"A fenced node no longer has access to any shared resource".

Is there any other assumption you have in mind?


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

--
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

-
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: 2005-05-02 23:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans