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

RE: [Linux-cluster] Cluster service restarting Locally



I understand no_lock won't work for multiple nodes, so I never mount GFS
w/ no_lock to multiple nodes, our cluster is two-node active-passive
cluster. So every time only active node has GFS mount. I could use iSCSI
disk only, but just want to test if GFS has better performance than
iSCSI.

Hong

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com
[mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On Behalf Of Erling Nygaard
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 3:52 PM
To: linux clustering
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Cluster service restarting Locally

I am sorry if this sounds a little harsh, but I'm not sure if laughing
or crying is the correct reaction to this email.

Let us get one thing straight.
You are currently mounting a GFS filesystem _concurrently_ on multiple
nodes using lock_nolock?

If this is the case I can tell you that this will _not_ work. You
_will_ corrupt your filesystem.

Mounting a GFS filesystem with lock_nolock for all practical purposes
turns the GFS filesystem into a local filesystem. There is _no_
locking done anymore.
With this setup there is no longer any coordination done among the
nodes to control the filesystem access, so they are all going to step
on each others toes.
You might as well use ext3, the end result will be the same ;-)

The purpose of lock_nolock is to (temporarily) be able to mount a GFS
filesystem on a single node in such cases where the entire locking
infrastructure is unavailable. (Something like a massive cluster
failure)

So you should really look into setting up one of the lock services :-)

E.






On 3/9/06, Hong Zheng <hong zheng wsdtx org> wrote:
> Lon,
>
> Thanks for your reply. In my system I don't use any lock system like
> lock_gulm or lock_dlm, I use no_lock because our applications'
> limitation. Do you think no_lock will also bring some lock traffic or
> not? When I tried lock_gulm before, our application had very bad
> performance, so I choose no_lock.
>
> And I'm not sure which update we have right now. Do you know the
> versions for clumanager and redhat-config-cluster of RHCS3U7?
>
> Hong
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com
> [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On Behalf Of Lon Hohberger
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 4:52 PM
> To: linux clustering
> Subject: RE: [Linux-cluster] Cluster service restarting Locally
>
> On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 14:02 -0600, Hong Zheng wrote:
> > I'm having the same problem. My system configuration is as follows:
> >
> > 2-node cluster: RH ES3, GFS6.0, clumanager-1.2.28-1 and
> > redhat-config-cluster-1.0.8-1
> >
> > Kernel: 2.4.21-37.EL
> >
> > Linux-iscsi-3.6.3 initiator: connections to iSCSI shared storage
> > server
>
> If it's not fixed in U7 (which I think it should be), please file a
> bugzilla... It sounds like the lock traffic is getting
network-starved.
>
> -- Lon
>
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>


--
-
Mac OS X. Because making Unix user-friendly is easier than debugging
Windows

--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster



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