Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Feb 11, 2009 22:19 +0100, Michal Wesolowski wrote: >> I'm trying to determine whether SQLite will properely work on Lustre. From a >> quick search it seems that some people use it successfully using >> flock/localflock mount option. But I have doubts. >> I'm interested in 2 scenarios: >> - SQLite works properely for single Lustre node. >> - SQLite files are accessed simultanously by processes on more than one node. > > I think that is only between processes on the same node. I think accessing > SQLite between different processes on different nodes might result in file > corruption by SQLite itself, regardless of the locking by Lustre. > > If you want to test this, you definitely need to mount all clients with > "-o flock" so the locking is coherent across all clients. > >> In SQLite documentation (http://www.sqlite.org/lockingv3.html) there is >> statement that this db engine uses advisory locks to protect shared date. > > > 6.0 How To Corrupt Your Database Files > > SQLite uses POSIX advisory locks to implement locking on Unix... > Your best defense is to not use SQLite for files on a network filesystem. I saw this too, but my impression was that this remark apply to previous deliberations about buggy implementation of advisory locks on some NFS systems.
regards michal _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
