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

Re: [Linux-cluster] lock_dlm but local flocks = true?

Hi Steve, thanks for your answer
but I have not put the "localflocks" mount parameter anywhere. Look at "gfs_tool df" output:

# gfs_tool df /mnt/gfs
  SB lock proto = "lock_dlm"
  SB lock table = "H-N:gfs01"
  SB ondisk format = 1309
  SB multihost format = 1401
  Block size = 4096
  Journals = 2
  Resource Groups = 200
  Mounted lock proto = "lock_dlm"
  Mounted lock table = "H-N:gfs01"
  Mounted host data = "jid=0:id=196610:first=1"
  Journal number = 0
  Lock module flags = 0
  Local flocks = TRUE
  Local caching = FALSE
  Oopses OK = FALSE

it says 'Mounted lock proto = "lock_dlm" ' because that is what I did. So why is it using "local flocks"?

Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:15:46 +0000 From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho redhat com> To: linux clustering <linux-cluster redhat com> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] lock_dlm but local flocks = true? Message-ID: <1261574146 2219 4 camel localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 13:24 +0100, frank wrote:
>  Hi,
>  I'm running RHEL 5.4 with a GFS1 filesystem (over a SAN)
>  After checking the "ping_pong" test on the gfs filesystem I noticed
>  counters was too much high, like doing the test with a local filesystem.
>  But gfs filesystem is mounted with "lock_dlm" option. The only strange
>  thing I see is in "gfs_tool df" output because it shows "Local flocks =
>  TRUE" instead of "Local flocks = FALSE"
> > How is this possible? Can I change this in some way?
>  Thanks for your help.
> >
You need to avoid specifying the localflocks mount parameter if you want
the flocks to be true cluster locks,


Aquest missatge ha estat analitzat per MailScanner
a la cerca de virus i d'altres continguts perillosos,
i es considera que està net.
For all your IT requirements visit: http://www.transtec.co.uk

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