Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On 9/6/05, Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 02:55, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:48, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without > > > > ever seeing the code? > > > > > > You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there > > > anything more I need to know? > > > > I would still like to know why you consider it a "sin". On OpenVMS it is > > fast, provides a way of cleaning up... > > There is something hard about handling EPIPE? > Just the fact that you want me to handle it ;) > > and does not introduce single point > > of failure as it is the case with a daemon. And if we ever want to spread > > the load between 2 boxes we easily can do it. > > But you said it runs on an aging Alpha, surely you do not intend to expand it > to two aging Alphas? You would be right if I was designing this right now. Now roll 10 - 12 years back and now I have a shiny new alpha. Would you criticize me then for using a mechanism that allowed easily spread application across several nodes with minimal changes if needed? What you fail to realize that there applications that run and will continue to run for a long time. > And what makes you think that socket-based > synchronization keeps you from spreading out the load over multiple boxes? > > > Why would I not want to use it? > > It is not the right tool for the job from what you have told me. You want to > get a few bytes of information from one task to another? Use a socket, as > God intended. > Again, when TCPIP is not a native network stack, when libc socket routines are not readily available - DLM starts looking much more viable. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Maw, 2005-09-06 at 02:48 -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without > > ever seeing the code? > > You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there > anything more I need to know? That's standard practice for many non-Unix operating systems. It means your code supports failover without much additional work and it provides all the functionality for locks on a single node too - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 02:55, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:48, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without > > > ever seeing the code? > > > > You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there > > anything more I need to know? > > I would still like to know why you consider it a "sin". On OpenVMS it is > fast, provides a way of cleaning up... There is something hard about handling EPIPE? > and does not introduce single point > of failure as it is the case with a daemon. And if we ever want to spread > the load between 2 boxes we easily can do it. But you said it runs on an aging Alpha, surely you do not intend to expand it to two aging Alphas? And what makes you think that socket-based synchronization keeps you from spreading out the load over multiple boxes? > Why would I not want to use it? It is not the right tool for the job from what you have told me. You want to get a few bytes of information from one task to another? Use a socket, as God intended. Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:48, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without > > ever seeing the code? > > You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there > anything more I need to know? > I would still like to know why you consider it a "sin". On OpenVMS it is fast, provides a way of cleaning up and does not introduce single point of failure as it is the case with a daemon. And if we ever want to spread the load between 2 boxes we easily can do it. Why would I not want to use it? -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without > ever seeing the code? You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there anything more I need to know? Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without ever seeing the code? You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there anything more I need to know? Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:48, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without ever seeing the code? You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there anything more I need to know? I would still like to know why you consider it a sin. On OpenVMS it is fast, provides a way of cleaning up and does not introduce single point of failure as it is the case with a daemon. And if we ever want to spread the load between 2 boxes we easily can do it. Why would I not want to use it? -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 02:55, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:48, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without ever seeing the code? You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there anything more I need to know? I would still like to know why you consider it a sin. On OpenVMS it is fast, provides a way of cleaning up... There is something hard about handling EPIPE? and does not introduce single point of failure as it is the case with a daemon. And if we ever want to spread the load between 2 boxes we easily can do it. But you said it runs on an aging Alpha, surely you do not intend to expand it to two aging Alphas? And what makes you think that socket-based synchronization keeps you from spreading out the load over multiple boxes? Why would I not want to use it? It is not the right tool for the job from what you have told me. You want to get a few bytes of information from one task to another? Use a socket, as God intended. Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Maw, 2005-09-06 at 02:48 -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without ever seeing the code? You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there anything more I need to know? That's standard practice for many non-Unix operating systems. It means your code supports failover without much additional work and it provides all the functionality for locks on a single node too - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On 9/6/05, Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 06 September 2005 02:55, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:48, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without ever seeing the code? You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there anything more I need to know? I would still like to know why you consider it a sin. On OpenVMS it is fast, provides a way of cleaning up... There is something hard about handling EPIPE? Just the fact that you want me to handle it ;) and does not introduce single point of failure as it is the case with a daemon. And if we ever want to spread the load between 2 boxes we easily can do it. But you said it runs on an aging Alpha, surely you do not intend to expand it to two aging Alphas? You would be right if I was designing this right now. Now roll 10 - 12 years back and now I have a shiny new alpha. Would you criticize me then for using a mechanism that allowed easily spread application across several nodes with minimal changes if needed? What you fail to realize that there applications that run and will continue to run for a long time. And what makes you think that socket-based synchronization keeps you from spreading out the load over multiple boxes? Why would I not want to use it? It is not the right tool for the job from what you have told me. You want to get a few bytes of information from one task to another? Use a socket, as God intended. Again, when TCPIP is not a native network stack, when libc socket routines are not readily available - DLM starts looking much more viable. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Monday 05 September 2005 23:58, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 00:07, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Monday 05 September 2005 23:02, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > By the way, you said "alpha server" not "alpha servers", was that just a > > > slip? Because if you don't have a cluster then why are you using a dlm? > > > > No, it is not a slip. The application is running on just one node, so we > > do not really use "distributed" part. However we make heavy use of the > > rest of lock manager features, especially lock value blocks. > > Urk, so you imprinted on the clunkiest, most pathetically limited dlm feature > without even having the excuse you were forced to use it. Why don't you just > have a daemon that sends your values over a socket? That should be all of a > day's coding. > Umm, because when most of the code was written TCP and the rest was the clunkiest code out there? Plus, having a daemon introduces problems with cleanup (say process dies for one reason or another) whereas having it in OS takes care of that. > Anyway, thanks for sticking your head up, and sorry if it sounds aggressive. > But you nicely supported my claim that most who think they should be using a > dlm, really shouldn't. Heh, do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without ever seeing the code? -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 00:07, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Monday 05 September 2005 23:02, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > By the way, you said "alpha server" not "alpha servers", was that just a > > slip? Because if you don't have a cluster then why are you using a dlm? > > No, it is not a slip. The application is running on just one node, so we > do not really use "distributed" part. However we make heavy use of the > rest of lock manager features, especially lock value blocks. Urk, so you imprinted on the clunkiest, most pathetically limited dlm feature without even having the excuse you were forced to use it. Why don't you just have a daemon that sends your values over a socket? That should be all of a day's coding. Anyway, thanks for sticking your head up, and sorry if it sounds aggressive. But you nicely supported my claim that most who think they should be using a dlm, really shouldn't. Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Monday 05 September 2005 23:02, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > By the way, you said "alpha server" not "alpha servers", was that just a > slip? > Because if you don't have a cluster then why are you using a dlm? > No, it is not a slip. The application is running on just one node, so we do not really use "distributed" part. However we make heavy use of the rest of lock manager features, especially lock value blocks. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Monday 05 September 2005 23:02, Daniel Phillips wrote: By the way, you said alpha server not alpha servers, was that just a slip? Because if you don't have a cluster then why are you using a dlm? No, it is not a slip. The application is running on just one node, so we do not really use distributed part. However we make heavy use of the rest of lock manager features, especially lock value blocks. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 00:07, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 23:02, Daniel Phillips wrote: By the way, you said alpha server not alpha servers, was that just a slip? Because if you don't have a cluster then why are you using a dlm? No, it is not a slip. The application is running on just one node, so we do not really use distributed part. However we make heavy use of the rest of lock manager features, especially lock value blocks. Urk, so you imprinted on the clunkiest, most pathetically limited dlm feature without even having the excuse you were forced to use it. Why don't you just have a daemon that sends your values over a socket? That should be all of a day's coding. Anyway, thanks for sticking your head up, and sorry if it sounds aggressive. But you nicely supported my claim that most who think they should be using a dlm, really shouldn't. Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GFS, what's remainingh
On Monday 05 September 2005 23:58, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Tuesday 06 September 2005 00:07, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 23:02, Daniel Phillips wrote: By the way, you said alpha server not alpha servers, was that just a slip? Because if you don't have a cluster then why are you using a dlm? No, it is not a slip. The application is running on just one node, so we do not really use distributed part. However we make heavy use of the rest of lock manager features, especially lock value blocks. Urk, so you imprinted on the clunkiest, most pathetically limited dlm feature without even having the excuse you were forced to use it. Why don't you just have a daemon that sends your values over a socket? That should be all of a day's coding. Umm, because when most of the code was written TCP and the rest was the clunkiest code out there? Plus, having a daemon introduces problems with cleanup (say process dies for one reason or another) whereas having it in OS takes care of that. Anyway, thanks for sticking your head up, and sorry if it sounds aggressive. But you nicely supported my claim that most who think they should be using a dlm, really shouldn't. Heh, do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without ever seeing the code? -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
