posix locking on OCFS2

[Rowland Penny]

On 23/11/14 20:23, 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.
> 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.
>
> Cheers - Michael
I understand that it would seem that I prematurely updated the wiki, 
that is why I am now trying to get to the root of the problem, and it 
would seem that there is a problem. Just where the problem is, is not 
going to be found by berating someone who tried CTDB and failed because 
they couldn't get/find the information to fix it. He did find a 
workaround and has said so, that is why he doesn't have the info, but he 
has asked someone, who might have the info, if they can provide it.

Rowland