I wonder if anyone has played with GFS SAN as an alternateive to NFS
that may/is supposed to have locking-like-local?
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/csgfs/admin-guide/
Or does this have similar deficiencies to NFS?
-Erik Kangas
LuxSci
Mark Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Josko Plazonic wrote:
It also has read and write delegation which should take care of some
of your other complaints about NFS. For example, if you are granted
read delegation no other client can write to the file. With write
delegation no other client can write to or read the file.
That isn't good enough. IMAP has shared read/write. The NFSv4 RFC
itself says that it expects that lock manipulation is less frequent
than read()/write() operations. To do what IMAP needs with primitive
as read/write delegation, lock manipulation has to be twice as frequent.
Just saying it might warrant another look - if nothing else to
discover from what shortcomings it suffers...
I fail to see the benefit in investing more time chasing a
non-solution that has never worked right in the past; and which has
known unfixable design flaws even if it can be made to work now.
A vastly superior, proven, and cheaper solution is known and available
today.
It isn't as if I spend my days thinking "gee, I haven't beaten my head
against that wall in a while, time to go and do it again."
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
