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

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 20, Issue 12



Marco Masotti wrote:

==========================
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:42:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Wood <chekov ucla edu>
To: linux-cluster redhat com
Subject: [Linux-cluster] Re: Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 20, Issue 12
==========================


[...]

SMB is stateful and not cluster aware,


I'm defintely missing something in my assumptions. By its very nature, shouldn't GFS be prescinding from its application, as in every other filesystem?

Also, pls allow the ingenuous question, what number of applications needs ever to be cluster aware, if not a very strict one? Also, intuitively as it may come, should a properly written applicative be independent of the operating filesystem properties?
Thanks.

I agree here - GFS supposedly supports posix semantics, so the application should not care about whether it is clustered or not, as long as it using locking correctly on it's own. At least, with other clustered filesystems, this is the case. If GFS doesn't allow this, I would say it isn't really a cluster aware filesystem, but more of a distributed lock/cache coherent filesystem without fully clustered semantics.. (please correct me here! I'm still learning)

Eric




--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson        Sr. Systems Administrator        Centaur Technology
Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


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