posix locking on OCFS2
steve at steve-ss.com
Sun Nov 23 05:39:57 MST 2014
On 23/11/14 13:28, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On 23/11/14 11:35, Min Wai Chan wrote:
>> Dear Rowland,
>> I did test with ping_ping before
>> The ping_pong testing do work...
>> -- according to this
>> Thank You
>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Ralph Böhme <rb at sernet.de> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:03:26PM +0100, 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 Yes, the documentation is just out of date.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
>>> thanks David!
>>> SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
>>> phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
>>> AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
> OK, getting confused now
> Amitay posted this link:
> Which has this:
> Cluster aware flock(2)
> Required Kernel: Linux 2.6.26
> Required Tools: Any
> The flock(2) system call is now cluster aware. File locks taken on one
> node from userspace will interact with those taken on other nodes. All
> flock(2) options are supported, including the kernels ability to cancel
> a lock request when an appropriate kill signal is recieved by the user.
> Unfortunately, POSIX file locks, also known as lockf(3) or fcntl(2)
> locks are not yet supported in a cluster manner. We hope to have that
> ready in an upcoming version of Ocfs2.
> It also has this:
> Cluster aware POSIX file locks (fcntl(), lockf())
> Required Kernel: Linux 2.6.28
> Required Tools: Any - userspace cluster stack required
> POSIX locks are now cluster aware. Locks taken on one node will interact
> with those taken on another node. Due to the group communication
> required to make these locks coherent, a userspace cluster is required.
> What is the difference between fcntl() & fcntl(2), also lockf() &
> lockf(3) ???? Which is required ???
> According to Steve, CTDB does not work, if this is so and I have no
> reason to believe he is lying (I mean, why would he, what would he
> gain???), the problem needs to be identified and documented until it is
We knew it didn't work so we do the split brain with drbd instead. Min
Wai, who doesn't use drbd is stuck because he want's to put the lock on
ocfs2. His thread is called 'RAFT and CTDB'.
Summary: shared lock on ocfs2, ctdb will not start. TIOLI.
More information about the samba-technical