Klaus: You are correct. So, I suppose I need the local lock on my qmaster node?
Is that correct? TIA On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Klaus Steden <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mag, > > If I'm not mistaken, only qmaster writes to the DB, the execd process relays > queries through a listening daemon using RPC on the qmaster host which > speaks BDB on the back end. > > hth, > Klaus > > On 1/16/09 4:22 PM, "Mag Gam" <[email protected]> etched on stone tablets: > >> Thanks Andreas. >> >> We also run Sun Grid Engine for our engineering department. Out setup >> is basically like this: >> >> Master -- QMASTER (1 server) >> Slaves -- EXECD (300 servers) >> >> >> They are share a filesystem which is running of Lustre. Grid Engine >> has a Berkeley Database as its backend. I am wondering if I need to >> change all of my slaves and master to distributed locking or local >> locking. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> TIA >> >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Andreas Dilger <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Jan 16, 2009 00:52 -0500, Mag Gam wrote: >>>> At our university many of our students and professors use SQLite and >>>> Berkley DB for their projects. Probally, BDB more than SQLite. Would I >>>> we need to have Lustre mounted up a certain way to avoid corruption >>>> via file locking? Any thoughts about this? >>> >>> That depends on how they use it. Mounting Lustre with "-o localflock" >>> will provide locking on a single node without any performance impact, >>> which is enough for single-node databases like SQLite and Berkley DB. >>> >>> Cheers, Andreas >>> -- >>> Andreas Dilger >>> Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group >>> Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
