Thank you for your quick response! I am following up with the IBM Linux Technology Center.
Peace, Andrew On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 16:17 -0700, Sunil Mushran wrote: > Ahh... this is a 1.2 "feature". :) > > In 1.2, the fs does messaging (votes) for mount/umount, rename, > unlink and delete. So the said operations can fail... if a node dies > during the voting process. > > We have addressed this issue in mainline. Sometime in 2.6.18/19. > As in, rename, unlink and delete now use the dlm and thus should > no longer fail on a node death. > > Andrew D. Ball wrote: > > >From /var/log/messages: > > > > Jul 16 17:06:43 enva11 kernel: (29933,2):ocfs2_broadcast_vote:725 ERROR: > > status > > = -107 > > Jul 16 17:06:43 enva11 kernel: (29933,2):ocfs2_do_request_vote:798 > > ERROR: status > > = -107 > > Jul 16 17:06:43 enva11 kernel: (29933,2):ocfs2_rename:1196 ERROR: status > > = -107 > > > > The userspace error is a failed invocation of the mv command. I know > > that the return code is not 0, but didn't capture it. I can re-run > > tomorrow if that would be helpful. > > > > Thanks for your prompt response! > > > > Peace, > > Andrew > > > > On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 15:31 -0700, Sunil Mushran wrote: > > > >> It should behavw as you expect it to. That's the idea. > >> What are the errors when mkdir fails? > >> As in, userspace and dmesg. > >> > >> Andrew D. Ball wrote: > >> > >>> I would really like to see the following behavior: > >>> > >>> (1) I start with a two-node cluster, both nodes online, with an ocfs2 > >>> filesystem mounted on both nodes. > >>> (2) I power off one of the nodes without unmounting the filesystem. > >>> (3) The node that is still powered on continues to use the filesystem > >>> mounted read-write with no problems. > >>> > >>> I believe I'm seeing that the node that is still online fails to write > >>> data to the filesystem. Specifically, mkdir(2) is failing. > >>> > >>> This is related to having a quorum right? Can the quorum requirements > >>> be disabled? I have a file-backed database on the filesystem and my > >>> entire software stack will be broken if any surviving nodes cannot > >>> update the database. Is there any reason why ignoring the quorum would > >>> be not a good idea? > >>> > >>> Thanks for your help, > >>> Andrew > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ocfs2-users mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users > >>> > >>> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ocfs2-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users > > > _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-users mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
