posix locking on OCFS2

steve steve at steve-ss.com
Sun Nov 23 13:30:45 MST 2014

On 23/11/14 21:23, Michael Adam wrote:
> On 2014-11-23 at 18:23 +0000, Rowland Penny wrote:
>> On 23/11/14 17:34, Michael Adam wrote:
>>> The number in parentheses is the manual page section.
>>> For instance, there is a command line tool called flock
>>> (section 1). And the C-function flock (section 2).
>>> This parenthesis notation is just a convenient way to
>>> identify one, i.e. flock(1) refers to the command line tool
>>> and flock(2) refers to the C-function. You can look at the
>>> corresponding man pages with "man 1 flock" and "man 2 flock".
>>> And so on.
>> I understand about the numbers in parentheses (brackets for lesser mortals
>> like me) ;-)
> Oh, hints like these are always very valuable for me.
> Not being a native speaker (which might account for
> being something else than a "lesser mortal"... ;-)
> I learned that:
> - () are parentheses
> - [] are brackets
> - {} are braces
> So I was not trying to use especially sophisticated
> language, but just what I learned... ;)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket seems to support
> that, but also tells me that "bracket" is the general term
> including the above and that [] are also called square
> brackets and {} curly brackets... You never stop learning... :)
>> but what about when the brackets are empty?
> You don't need to take it to seriously.
> I guess this should just make it clear that it
> is a function that is being referred to.
>>>> According to Steve, CTDB does not work,
>>> Since those who should know confirmed that OCFS2
>>> has sufficient support for fcntl locks to support
>>> ctdb's recovery lock, I assume that steve has
>>> a misconfiguration of some kind. Just stating that
>>> it does not work is by the way not precise enough.
>> OK, I understand what you are saying, but I seem to remember Steve asking
>> for help with this some time ago.
>> All I want to do is get the documentation on the wiki updated correctly, so
>> that users can follow it and end up with the results they require.
> Right, but I think David was absolutely right in reverting
> your note on the wiki, since
> a) There was afaik no evidence/detail for ctdb not working on ocfs2.
What more evidence do you need?
2014/07/11 08:18:28.865342 [set_recmode:27959]: ctdb_recovery_lock: Got
recovery lock on '/cluster/ctdb/lockfile'
2014/07/11 08:18:28.871862 [set_recmode:27959]: ERROR: recovery lock
file /cluster/ctdb/lockfile not locked when recovering!

Chan has just reported the very same error.

> b) The notice from the people that do run samba + ctdb + ocfs2
>     that it works as expected.

And these are the people who also
>     ship this combo in their distro (David and others).
> So, your effort to improve the wiki documentation is
> highly appreciated, Rowland, but in this case, I am
> afraid the change was premature.
We suggested someone added it in an effort to save others the time it 
takes to realise something is wrong. He was right to add it to the wiki.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list