[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Cluster-devel] [GFS2 PATCH]

----- Original Message -----
| Hi,
| If we are going to do this, then perhaps we should consider reading
| in
| the rindex on mount? That way it will always be uptodate, and we can
| refuse to mount if the rindex is damaged which is probably cleaner
| than
| doing it after the event.
| The only concern is the time taken to mount large filesystems. Having
| said that the rindex should be contiguous on disk in most cases, so
| it
| should be a fairly fast operation. Worth considering, anyway I think,
| Steve.


That's not a bad idea, and we should consider it for a future enhancement.
However, I think these checks still need to be here because there are
other ways the rindex can get out of date and need to be re-read after
mount. For example, if there was another intermediate gfs2_grow done on a
different node.

BTW, I assume you saw my other patch from yesterday regarding gfs2_unlink, right?


Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]