posix locking on OCFS2

Richard Sharpe realrichardsharpe at gmail.com
Sun Nov 23 17:16:47 MST 2014

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Michael Adam <obnox at samba.org> 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

Don't feel too bad. I never clearly distinguished them for a long time
...  and would have used the square brackets and curly brackets labels

> 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

Richard Sharpe

More information about the samba-technical mailing list