Was that introduced by the same person who thought that binding to
sequential ports down from 1024 was a good idea?
Considering how hard RedHat was pushing Gluster at the Summit a week or
two ago, it seems like they're making it hard for people to really
implement it in any capacity other than their Storage Appliance product.
Luckily I don't need locking yet, but I suppose RedHat will be happy
when I do since I'll need to buy more GFS2 Add-Ons for my environment :-)
David
On 7/13/12 7:49 AM, Rajesh Amaravathi wrote:
Actually, if you want to mount *any* nfs volumes(of Gluster) OR
exports (of kernel-nfs-server), you cannot do it with locking on
a system where a glusterfs(nfs process) is running(since 3.3.0).
However, if its ok to mount without locking, then you should be
able to do it on localhost.
Regards,
Rajesh Amaravathi,
Software Engineer, GlusterFS
RedHat Inc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Coulson" <da...@davidcoulson.net>
To: "Tomasz Chmielewski" <man...@wpkg.org>
Cc: "Rajesh Amaravathi" <raj...@redhat.com>, "Gluster General Discussion List"
<gluster-users@gluster.org>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 3:16:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] NFS mounts with glusterd on localhost - reliable
or not?
On 7/13/12 5:29 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Killing the option to use NFS mounts on localhost is certainly quite
the opposite to my performance needs!
He was saying you can't run kernel NFS server and gluster NFS server at
the same time, on the same host. There is nothing stopping you from
mounting localhost:/volume on all your boxes. That is exactly how our
3.2.5 and 3.3.0 environments access volumes for the performance reasons
you identified.
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
