Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:45:29 +0200 | From | Lars Marowsky-Bree <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1b/7] dlm: core locking |
| |
On 2005-04-28T09:39:22, Daniel McNeil <daniel@osdl.org> wrote:
> Since a DLM is a distributed lock manager, its usage is entirely for > locking some shared resource (might not be storage, might be shared > state, shared data, etc). If the DLM can grant a lock, but not > guarantee that other nodes (including the ones that have been kicked > out of the cluster membership) do not have a conflicting DLM lock, then > any applications that depend on the DLM for protection/coordination > be in trouble. Doesn't the GFS code depend on the DLM not being > recovered until after fencing of dead nodes?
It makes a whole lot of sense to combine a DLM with (appropriate) fencing so that the shared resources are protected. I understood David's comment to rather imply that fencing is assumed to happen outside the DLM's world in a different component; ie more of a comment on sane modularization instead of sane real-world configuration.
Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>
-- High Availability & Clustering SUSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |