On Jun 01, 2007 09:52 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:13:39PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Clusters usually have other ways to do this, haven't they?
> > Typically they have STONITH too. It's probably too simple minded
> > to just replace a real cluster setup which also ha
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:13:39PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Unfortunately, it's not possible to do what you suggest, since one of
> > the whole points of increasing the sequence number every 5 seconds is
> > to act as a keep-alive, so another machine trying to access the shared
>
> Clusters us
> Unfortunately, it's not possible to do what you suggest, since one of
> the whole points of increasing the sequence number every 5 seconds is
> to act as a keep-alive, so another machine trying to access the shared
Clusters usually have other ways to do this, haven't they?
Typically they have S
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:46:19AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> That will make laptop users very unhappy if you spin up their disks
> every 5 seconds. And even on other systems it might reduce the MTBF
> if you write the super block much more often than before. It might
> be better to set it up i
> It was mentioned before but deserves mentioning again that this will
> be an optional feature, mostly for use on SANs, iSCSI, etc where a disk
> might be accessed by multiple nodes at the same time. That means there
> will not be any impact for desktop users waiting 10s for each of their
> files
On Jun 01, 2007 10:46 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Kalpak Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been
> mounted at 2 places at the same time causing a lot of damage to the
> filesystem The superblock will have a block number (s_mmp_block)
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 10:46 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Kalpak Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been mounted at 2
> > places at the same time causing a lot of damage to the filesystem. This
> > patch reserves superblock
Kalpak Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been mounted at 2
> places at the same time causing a lot of damage to the filesystem. This patch
> reserves superblock fields and an INCOMPAT flag for adding multiple mount
> protection
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 12:16 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:28:33AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> >
> > So can I assume that the INCOMPAT_MMP flag and the s_mmp_interval and
> > s_mmp_block superblock fields will be reserved regardless of whether the
> > patches go into ext4?
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:28:33AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
>
> So can I assume that the INCOMPAT_MMP flag and the s_mmp_interval and
> s_mmp_block superblock fields will be reserved regardless of whether the
> patches go into ext4? I had attached the patches in the last mail so you
> can share y
On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 03:06 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 10:39 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > Hi Kalpak,
> >
> > On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:22:32AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> > > It will also protect against running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem
> > > by adding
Hi Ted,
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 10:39 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> Hi Kalpak,
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:22:32AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> > It will also protect against running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem
> > by adding similar logic to ext2fs_open().
>
> Your patch didn't add this logic
Hi Ted,
For what it's worth, we have several petabytes of data residing in
ext3 file systems, a large staff of mainly non-idiots, and HA s/w,
and I still feel strongly that multi-mount protection is a good idea.
People, software, and hardware all malfunction in myriad ways, and the
more you have
Hi Kalpak,
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:22:32AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> It will also protect against running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem
> by adding similar logic to ext2fs_open().
Your patch didn't add this logic to ext2fs_open(); it just reserved
the space in the superblock.
I don't mind
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 01:25 +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> Frankly, I don't understand why we need this feature. The filesystem
> limitations (=not ready for clusters) should be described in docs.
> That's enough from my POV...
It is highly advocated that ext3/4 filesystem should not be multiply
mou
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:04:42PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 12:45 +0530, Manoj Joseph wrote:
> > Kalpak Shah wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been
> > > mounted at 2 places at the same time causing a lot of damage to th
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 13:23 +0530, Manoj Joseph wrote:
> Kalpak Shah wrote:
>
> >> Also, I am curious about this. Is there a test case for mounting the
> >> same filesystem multiple times? Does this use different paths to reach
> >> the device? Or is there a race? Or does it happen on a device s
Kalpak Shah wrote:
Also, I am curious about this. Is there a test case for mounting the
same filesystem multiple times? Does this use different paths to reach
the device? Or is there a race? Or does it happen on a device shared by
multiple hosts?
If you are using some HA software, there is
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 12:45 +0530, Manoj Joseph wrote:
> Kalpak Shah wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been
> > mounted at 2 places at the same time causing a lot of damage to the
> > filesystem. This patch reserves superblock fields and an INCOMPAT
>
Kalpak Shah wrote:
Hi,
There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been
mounted at 2 places at the same time causing a lot of damage to the
filesystem. This patch reserves superblock fields and an INCOMPAT
flag for adding multiple mount protection(MMP) support within the
ext4 files
Hi,
There have been reported instances of a filesystem having been mounted at 2
places at the same time causing a lot of damage to the filesystem. This patch
reserves superblock fields and an INCOMPAT flag for adding multiple mount
protection(MMP) support within the ext4 filesystem itself. The
21 matches
Mail list logo
