posix locking on OCFS2
steve at steve-ss.com
Sun Nov 23 03:37:26 MST 2014
On 23/11/14 10:09, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On 22/11/14 22:57, steve wrote:
>> On 22/11/14 23:03, David Disseldorp wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:47:54 +0100, Ralph Böhme wrote:
>>>>> Unfortunately, POSIX file locks, also known as lockf(3) or fcntl(2)
>>>>> are not yet supported in a cluster manner. We hope to have that
>>>>> ready in an
>>>>> upcoming version of Ocfs2.
>>>> possibly a documentation bug? Few lines below it states:
>>> Yes, the documentation is just out of date. OCFS2 (alongside DLM)
>>> supports cluster coherent POSIX locks, which can be tested via the
>>> ping_pong tool provided with ctdb.
>>> I've reverted the erroneous Wiki update. FWIW, Jim documented this
>>> back in 2011 with:
>>> Cheers, David
>> The fact remains, that ctdb will not start if the lock is on shared
>> ocfs2 storage. Please leave the wiki as it is, with this fact intact.
> Hi Steve, do you want to test with the 'ping_pong' tool as described by
> David, If it doesn't work, can you file a bug on CTDB,as it would seem
> it should work. If you do file a bug, I will put something back into the
> documentation linking to the bug report.
Hi Rowland. I'm afraid not. We're already working all hours god sends as
it is. In a real domain with real people doing real work, it doesn't
work. It's as simple as that. Yes, there are workarounds which we are
using. I vote that the warning you wrote calling a spade a spade in
plain English, be reinstated. It will help a lot of us save a lot of
time. What a way to spend a Sunday...
More information about the samba-technical