Kalpak Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been mounted at 2
places at the same time causing a lot of damage to the filesystem. This patch
reserves superblock fields and an INCOMPAT flag for adding multiple mount
protection(MMP)
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 10:46 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
Kalpak Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been mounted at 2
places at the same time causing a lot of damage to the filesystem. This
patch reserves superblock fields and an
On Jun 01, 2007 10:46 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
Kalpak Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been
mounted at 2 places at the same time causing a lot of damage to the
filesystem The superblock will have a block number (s_mmp_block)
which
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:46:19AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
That will make laptop users very unhappy if you spin up their disks
every 5 seconds. And even on other systems it might reduce the MTBF
if you write the super block much more often than before. It might
be better to set it up in
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:13:39PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
Unfortunately, it's not possible to do what you suggest, since one of
the whole points of increasing the sequence number every 5 seconds is
to act as a keep-alive, so another machine trying to access the shared
Clusters usually
On Jun 01, 2007 09:52 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:13:39PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
Clusters usually have other ways to do this, haven't they?
Typically they have STONITH too. It's probably too simple minded
to just replace a real cluster setup which also handles
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:28:33AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
So can I assume that the INCOMPAT_MMP flag and the s_mmp_interval and
s_mmp_block superblock fields will be reserved regardless of whether the
patches go into ext4? I had attached the patches in the last mail so you
can share your
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 12:16 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:28:33AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
So can I assume that the INCOMPAT_MMP flag and the s_mmp_interval and
s_mmp_block superblock fields will be reserved regardless of whether the
patches go into ext4? I had
On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 03:06 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
Hi Ted,
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 10:39 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
Hi Kalpak,
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:22:32AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
It will also protect against running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem
by adding similar logic
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 01:25 +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
Frankly, I don't understand why we need this feature. The filesystem
limitations (=not ready for clusters) should be described in docs.
That's enough from my POV...
It is highly advocated that ext3/4 filesystem should not be multiply
Hi Kalpak,
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:22:32AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
It will also protect against running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem
by adding similar logic to ext2fs_open().
Your patch didn't add this logic to ext2fs_open(); it just reserved
the space in the superblock.
I don't mind
Hi Ted,
For what it's worth, we have several petabytes of data residing in
ext3 file systems, a large staff of mainly non-idiots, and HA s/w,
and I still feel strongly that multi-mount protection is a good idea.
People, software, and hardware all malfunction in myriad ways, and the
more you
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:04:42PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 12:45 +0530, Manoj Joseph wrote:
Kalpak Shah wrote:
Hi,
There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been
mounted at 2 places at the same time causing a lot of damage to the
Kalpak Shah wrote:
Hi,
There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been
mounted at 2 places at the same time causing a lot of damage to the
filesystem. This patch reserves superblock fields and an INCOMPAT
flag for adding multiple mount protection(MMP) support within the
ext4
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 12:45 +0530, Manoj Joseph wrote:
Kalpak Shah wrote:
Hi,
There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been
mounted at 2 places at the same time causing a lot of damage to the
filesystem. This patch reserves superblock fields and an INCOMPAT
flag for
Kalpak Shah wrote:
Also, I am curious about this. Is there a test case for mounting the
same filesystem multiple times? Does this use different paths to reach
the device? Or is there a race? Or does it happen on a device shared by
multiple hosts?
If you are using some HA software, there
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 13:23 +0530, Manoj Joseph wrote:
Kalpak Shah wrote:
Also, I am curious about this. Is there a test case for mounting the
same filesystem multiple times? Does this use different paths to reach
the device? Or is there a race? Or does it happen on a device shared by
17 matches
Mail list logo
