Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-07 Thread David Teigland
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > +static inline void glock_put(struct gfs2_glock *gl) > +{ > + if (atomic_read(>gl_count) == 1) > + gfs2_glock_schedule_for_reclaim(gl); > + gfs2_assert(gl->gl_sbd, atomic_read(>gl_count) > 0,); > +

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-07 Thread David Teigland
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: +static inline void glock_put(struct gfs2_glock *gl) +{ + if (atomic_read(gl-gl_count) == 1) + gfs2_glock_schedule_for_reclaim(gl); + gfs2_assert(gl-gl_sbd, atomic_read(gl-gl_count) 0,); +

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-06 Thread Suparna Bhattacharya
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:17:08PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > - Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2 cannot > > > > possibly gain (or vice versa) > > > > > > > > - Relative merits of the two offerings > > > > >

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-06 Thread Suparna Bhattacharya
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:17:08PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2 cannot possibly gain (or vice versa) - Relative merits of the two offerings You missed the important

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Monday 05 September 2005 19:37, Joel Becker wrote: > OCFS2, the new filesystem, is fully general purpose. It > supports all the usual stuff, is quite fast... So I have heard, but isn't it time to quantify that? How do you think you would stack up here:

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Monday 05 September 2005 22:03, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Monday 05 September 2005 19:57, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > On Monday 05 September 2005 12:18, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Monday 05 September 2005 10:49, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > On Monday 05 September 2005 10:14, Lars

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Monday 05 September 2005 19:57, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Monday 05 September 2005 12:18, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Monday 05 September 2005 10:49, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > On Monday 05 September 2005 10:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > > > > On 2005-09-03T01:57:31, Daniel Phillips

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Monday 05 September 2005 12:18, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Monday 05 September 2005 10:49, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > On Monday 05 September 2005 10:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > > > On 2005-09-03T01:57:31, Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The only current users of dlms are

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Joel Becker
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:24:03PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > The whole point of the orcacle cluster filesystem as it was described in old > papers was about pfiles, control files and software, because you can easyly > use direct block access (with ASM) for tablespaces. OCFS, the

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Joel Becker
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 09:37:15AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > I am curious why a lock manager uses open to implement its locking > semantics rather than using the locking API (POSIX locks etc) however. Because it is simple (how do you fcntl(2) from a shell fd?), has no ranges (what do you

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Andrew Morton
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 12:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > - How are they ref counted > > > - What are the cleanup semantics > > > - How do I pass a lock between processes (AF_UNIX sockets wont work now) > > > - How do I poll on a lock coming

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Alan Cox
On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 12:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > - How are they ref counted > > - What are the cleanup semantics > > - How do I pass a lock between processes (AF_UNIX sockets wont work now) > > - How do I poll on a lock coming free. > > - What are the semantics of lock ownership >

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Kurt Hackel
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:24:03PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 04:16:31PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > > That is the whole point why OCFS exists ;-) > > The whole point of the orcacle cluster filesystem as it was described in old > papers was about pfiles,

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 04:16:31PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > That is the whole point why OCFS exists ;-) The whole point of the orcacle cluster filesystem as it was described in old papers was about pfiles, control files and software, because you can easyly use direct block access (with

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Andrew Morton
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 02:19 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > create_lockspace() > > > release_lockspace() > > > lock() > > > unlock() > > > > Neat. I'd be inclined to make them syscalls then. I don't suppose anyone > > is likely to object

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread kurt . hackel
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 05:24:33PM +0800, David Teigland wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device. > > > > > > > inotify did that for a

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Alan Cox
On Sad, 2005-09-03 at 21:46 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a > lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare > me. O_NONBLOCK means "open this file in nonblocking mode", not "attempt to > acquire a

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Alan Cox
On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 02:19 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > create_lockspace() > > release_lockspace() > > lock() > > unlock() > > Neat. I'd be inclined to make them syscalls then. I don't suppose anyone > is likely to object if we reserve those slots. If the locks are not file

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Monday 05 September 2005 10:49, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Monday 05 September 2005 10:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > > On 2005-09-03T01:57:31, Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The only current users of dlms are cluster filesystems. There are zero > > > users of the userspace

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Monday 05 September 2005 10:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2005-09-03T01:57:31, Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The only current users of dlms are cluster filesystems. There are zero > > users of the userspace dlm api. > > That is incorrect... Application users Lars, sorry

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Lars Marowsky-Bree
On 2005-09-03T01:57:31, Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only current users of dlms are cluster filesystems. There are zero users > of the userspace dlm api. That is incorrect, and you're contradicting yourself here: > What does have to be resolved is a common API for node

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Lars Marowsky-Bree
On 2005-09-03T09:27:41, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh thats interesting, I never thought about putting data files (tablespaces) > in a clustered file system. Does that mean you can run supported RAC on > shared ocfs2 files and anybody is using that? That is the whole point why

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 12:09:23AM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote: > Btw, I'm curious to know how useful folks find the ext3 mount options > errors=continue and errors=panic. I'm extremely likely to implement the > errors=read-only behavior as default in OCFS2 and I'm wondering whether the > other two

Re: real read-only [was Re: GFS, what's remaining]

2005-09-05 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:27:35AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > There's a better reason, too. I do swsusp. Then I'd like to boot with > / mounted read-only (so that I can read my config files, some > binaries, and maybe suspended image), but I absolutely may not write > to disk at this point,

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Stephen C. Tweedie
Hi, On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:33, Pavel Machek wrote: > > - read-only mount > > - "specatator" mount (like ro but no journal allocated for the mount, > > no fencing needed for failed node that was mounted as specatator) > > I'd call it "real-read-only", and yes, that's very usefull > mount.

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread David Teigland
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:19:48AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Four functions: > > create_lockspace() > > release_lockspace() > > lock() > > unlock() > > Neat. I'd be inclined to make them syscalls then. I don't suppose anyone > is likely

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Monday 05 September 2005 05:19, Andrew Morton wrote: > David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device. > > >

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Andrew Morton
David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device. > > > > > > > inotify did that for a while, but we ended up

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread David Teigland
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device. > > > > inotify did that for a while, but we ended up going with a straight syscall > interface. > > How fat is

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread David Teigland
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:58:08AM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote: > #define gfs2_assert(sdp, assertion) do { \ > if (unlikely(!(assertion))) { \ > printk(KERN_ERR "GFS2: fsid=\n", (sdp)->sd_fsname); \ > BUG();

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Jörn Engel
On Mon, 5 September 2005 11:47:39 +0800, David Teigland wrote: > > Joern already suggested moving this out of line and into a function (as it > was before) to avoid repeating string constants. In that case the > function, file and line from BUG aren't useful. We now have this, does it > look

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Andrew Morton
David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device. > inotify did that for a while, but we ended up going with a straight syscall interface. How fat is the dlm interface? ie: how many syscalls would it take? - To unsubscribe from

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Pekka Enberg
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > +void gfs2_glock_hold(struct gfs2_glock *gl) > > +{ > > + glock_hold(gl); > > +} > > > > eh why? On 9/5/05, David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You removed the comment stating exactly why, see below. If that's not

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:33:44PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > - read-only mount > > - "specatator" mount (like ro but no journal allocated for the mount, > > no fencing needed for failed node that was mounted as specatator) > > I'd call it "real-read-only", and yes, that's very

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread David Teigland
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > +static unsigned int handle_roll(atomic_t *a) > +{ > + int x = atomic_read(a); > + if (x < 0) { > + atomic_set(a, 0); > + return 0; > + } > + return (unsigned int)x; > +} > > this is just

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread David Teigland
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: +static unsigned int handle_roll(atomic_t *a) +{ + int x = atomic_read(a); + if (x 0) { + atomic_set(a, 0); + return 0; + } + return (unsigned int)x; +} this is just plain scary.

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:33:44PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! - read-only mount - specatator mount (like ro but no journal allocated for the mount, no fencing needed for failed node that was mounted as specatator) I'd call it real-read-only, and yes, that's very usefull mount.

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Pekka Enberg
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: +void gfs2_glock_hold(struct gfs2_glock *gl) +{ + glock_hold(gl); +} eh why? On 9/5/05, David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You removed the comment stating exactly why, see below. If that's not a accepted

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Andrew Morton
David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device. inotify did that for a while, but we ended up going with a straight syscall interface. How fat is the dlm interface? ie: how many syscalls would it take? - To unsubscribe from this

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Jörn Engel
On Mon, 5 September 2005 11:47:39 +0800, David Teigland wrote: Joern already suggested moving this out of line and into a function (as it was before) to avoid repeating string constants. In that case the function, file and line from BUG aren't useful. We now have this, does it look ok? Ok

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread David Teigland
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:58:08AM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote: #define gfs2_assert(sdp, assertion) do { \ if (unlikely(!(assertion))) { \ printk(KERN_ERR GFS2: fsid=\n, (sdp)-sd_fsname); \ BUG();

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread David Teigland
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device. inotify did that for a while, but we ended up going with a straight syscall interface. How fat is the dlm

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Andrew Morton
David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device. inotify did that for a while, but we ended up going with a straight

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Monday 05 September 2005 05:19, Andrew Morton wrote: David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device. inotify did

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread David Teigland
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:19:48AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Four functions: create_lockspace() release_lockspace() lock() unlock() Neat. I'd be inclined to make them syscalls then. I don't suppose anyone is likely to object if we

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Stephen C. Tweedie
Hi, On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:33, Pavel Machek wrote: - read-only mount - specatator mount (like ro but no journal allocated for the mount, no fencing needed for failed node that was mounted as specatator) I'd call it real-read-only, and yes, that's very usefull mount. Could we get it

Re: real read-only [was Re: GFS, what's remaining]

2005-09-05 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:27:35AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: There's a better reason, too. I do swsusp. Then I'd like to boot with / mounted read-only (so that I can read my config files, some binaries, and maybe suspended image), but I absolutely may not write to disk at this point,

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 12:09:23AM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote: Btw, I'm curious to know how useful folks find the ext3 mount options errors=continue and errors=panic. I'm extremely likely to implement the errors=read-only behavior as default in OCFS2 and I'm wondering whether the other two are

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Lars Marowsky-Bree
On 2005-09-03T09:27:41, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh thats interesting, I never thought about putting data files (tablespaces) in a clustered file system. Does that mean you can run supported RAC on shared ocfs2 files and anybody is using that? That is the whole point why OCFS

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Lars Marowsky-Bree
On 2005-09-03T01:57:31, Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only current users of dlms are cluster filesystems. There are zero users of the userspace dlm api. That is incorrect, and you're contradicting yourself here: What does have to be resolved is a common API for node

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Monday 05 September 2005 10:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: On 2005-09-03T01:57:31, Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only current users of dlms are cluster filesystems. There are zero users of the userspace dlm api. That is incorrect... Application users Lars, sorry if I did

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Monday 05 September 2005 10:49, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 10:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: On 2005-09-03T01:57:31, Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only current users of dlms are cluster filesystems. There are zero users of the userspace dlm api.

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Alan Cox
On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 02:19 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: create_lockspace() release_lockspace() lock() unlock() Neat. I'd be inclined to make them syscalls then. I don't suppose anyone is likely to object if we reserve those slots. If the locks are not file descriptors then

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Alan Cox
On Sad, 2005-09-03 at 21:46 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare me. O_NONBLOCK means open this file in nonblocking mode, not attempt to acquire a clustered

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread kurt . hackel
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 05:24:33PM +0800, David Teigland wrote: On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: David Teigland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device. inotify did that for a while, but we ended

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Andrew Morton
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 02:19 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: create_lockspace() release_lockspace() lock() unlock() Neat. I'd be inclined to make them syscalls then. I don't suppose anyone is likely to object if we reserve those

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 04:16:31PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: That is the whole point why OCFS exists ;-) The whole point of the orcacle cluster filesystem as it was described in old papers was about pfiles, control files and software, because you can easyly use direct block access (with

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Kurt Hackel
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:24:03PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 04:16:31PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: That is the whole point why OCFS exists ;-) The whole point of the orcacle cluster filesystem as it was described in old papers was about pfiles, control

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Alan Cox
On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 12:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: - How are they ref counted - What are the cleanup semantics - How do I pass a lock between processes (AF_UNIX sockets wont work now) - How do I poll on a lock coming free. - What are the semantics of lock ownership - What

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Andrew Morton
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 12:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: - How are they ref counted - What are the cleanup semantics - How do I pass a lock between processes (AF_UNIX sockets wont work now) - How do I poll on a lock coming free. - What

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Joel Becker
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 09:37:15AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: I am curious why a lock manager uses open to implement its locking semantics rather than using the locking API (POSIX locks etc) however. Because it is simple (how do you fcntl(2) from a shell fd?), has no ranges (what do you do

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Joel Becker
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:24:03PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: The whole point of the orcacle cluster filesystem as it was described in old papers was about pfiles, control files and software, because you can easyly use direct block access (with ASM) for tablespaces. OCFS, the

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Monday 05 September 2005 12:18, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 10:49, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 10:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: On 2005-09-03T01:57:31, Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only current users of dlms are cluster

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Monday 05 September 2005 19:57, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 12:18, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 10:49, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 10:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: On 2005-09-03T01:57:31, Daniel Phillips [EMAIL

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Monday 05 September 2005 22:03, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 19:57, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 12:18, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 10:49, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 10:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-05 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Monday 05 September 2005 19:37, Joel Becker wrote: OCFS2, the new filesystem, is fully general purpose. It supports all the usual stuff, is quite fast... So I have heard, but isn't it time to quantify that? How do you think you would stack up here:

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread David Teigland
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > +void gfs2_glock_hold(struct gfs2_glock *gl) > +{ > + glock_hold(gl); > +} > > eh why? You removed the comment stating exactly why, see below. If that's not a accepted technique in the kernel, say so and I'll be happy to

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread David Teigland
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 10:41:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Joel Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > What happens when we want to add some new primitive which has no > > > posix-file analog? > > > > The point of dlmfs is not to express every primitive that the > > DLM has.

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread David Teigland
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 10:28:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 05:44:03PM +0800, David Teigland wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > + gfs2_assert(gl->gl_sbd, atomic_read(>gl_count) > 0,); > > > > > what is gfs2_assert() about

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Joel Becker
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:33:44PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > - read-only mount > > - "specatator" mount (like ro but no journal allocated for the mount, > > no fencing needed for failed node that was mounted as specatator) > > I'd call it "real-read-only", and yes, that's very usefull >

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > - read-only mount > - "specatator" mount (like ro but no journal allocated for the mount, > no fencing needed for failed node that was mounted as specatator) I'd call it "real-read-only", and yes, that's very usefull mount. Could we get it for ext3, too?

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Sunday 04 September 2005 03:28, Andrew Morton wrote: > If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a > syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API > in the future if it all comes unstuck then OK. That's why I asked (thus > far

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Hua Zhong
>takelock domainxxx lock1 >do sutff >droplock domainxxx lock1 > > When someone kills the shell, the lock is leaked, becuase droplock isn't > called. Why not open the lock resource (or the lock space) instead of individual locks as file? It then looks like this: open lock

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Joel Becker
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:18:36AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > take-and-drop-lock -d domainxxx -l lock1 -e "do stuff" Ahh, but then you have to have lots of scripts somewhere in path, or do massive inline scripts. especially if you want to take another lock in there somewhere.

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Andrew Morton
Joel Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I can't see how that works easily. I'm not worried about a > tarball (eventually Red Hat and SuSE and Debian would have it). I'm > thinking about this shell: > > exec 7 do stuff > exec 7 > If someone kills the shell while

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Joel Becker
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:18:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I thought I stated this in my other email. We're not intending > > to extend dlmfs. > > Famous last words ;) Heh, of course :-) > I don't buy the general "fs is nice because we can script it" argument, > really.

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Andrew Morton
Mark Fasheh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:23:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > What would be an acceptable replacement? I admit that O_NONBLOCK -> > > > trylock > > > is a bit unfortunate, but really it just needs a bit to express that - > > > nobody over here

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Andrew Morton
Joel Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:28:28AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a > > syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API > > in the future if it all comes

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Mark Fasheh
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:23:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > What would be an acceptable replacement? I admit that O_NONBLOCK -> trylock > > is a bit unfortunate, but really it just needs a bit to express that - > > nobody over here cares what it's called. > > The whole idea of

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Joel Becker
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:28:28AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a > syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API > in the future if it all comes unstuck then OK. > That's why I asked (thus far

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Andrew Morton
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If the only user is their tools I would say let it go ahead and be cute, even > sickeningly so. It is not supposed to be a general dlm api, at least that > is > my understanding. It is just supposed to be an interface for their tools. > Of

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Andrew Morton
Mark Fasheh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a > > lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare > > me. O_NONBLOCK means "open this

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Sunday 04 September 2005 00:46, Andrew Morton wrote: > Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The model you came up with for dlmfs is beyond cute, it's downright > > clever. > > Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a > lock-manager trylock because they're

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Mark Fasheh
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a > lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare > me. O_NONBLOCK means "open this file in nonblocking mode", not "attempt to > acquire

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Mark Fasheh
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare me. O_NONBLOCK means open this file in nonblocking mode, not attempt to acquire a

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Sunday 04 September 2005 00:46, Andrew Morton wrote: Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The model you came up with for dlmfs is beyond cute, it's downright clever. Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a lock-manager trylock because they're

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Andrew Morton
Mark Fasheh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare me. O_NONBLOCK means open this file in

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Andrew Morton
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the only user is their tools I would say let it go ahead and be cute, even sickeningly so. It is not supposed to be a general dlm api, at least that is my understanding. It is just supposed to be an interface for their tools. Of course it

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Joel Becker
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:28:28AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API in the future if it all comes unstuck then OK. That's why I asked (thus far

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Mark Fasheh
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:23:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: What would be an acceptable replacement? I admit that O_NONBLOCK - trylock is a bit unfortunate, but really it just needs a bit to express that - nobody over here cares what it's called. The whole idea of reinterpreting file

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Andrew Morton
Joel Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:28:28AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API in the future if it all comes unstuck then OK.

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Andrew Morton
Mark Fasheh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:23:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: What would be an acceptable replacement? I admit that O_NONBLOCK - trylock is a bit unfortunate, but really it just needs a bit to express that - nobody over here cares what it's

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Joel Becker
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:18:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: I thought I stated this in my other email. We're not intending to extend dlmfs. Famous last words ;) Heh, of course :-) I don't buy the general fs is nice because we can script it argument, really. You can just

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Andrew Morton
Joel Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't see how that works easily. I'm not worried about a tarball (eventually Red Hat and SuSE and Debian would have it). I'm thinking about this shell: exec 7/dlm/domain/lock1 do stuff exec 7/dev/null If someone

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Joel Becker
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:18:36AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: take-and-drop-lock -d domainxxx -l lock1 -e do stuff Ahh, but then you have to have lots of scripts somewhere in path, or do massive inline scripts. especially if you want to take another lock in there somewhere.

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Hua Zhong
takelock domainxxx lock1 do sutff droplock domainxxx lock1 When someone kills the shell, the lock is leaked, becuase droplock isn't called. Why not open the lock resource (or the lock space) instead of individual locks as file? It then looks like this: open lock space

Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Sunday 04 September 2005 03:28, Andrew Morton wrote: If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API in the future if it all comes unstuck then OK. That's why I asked (thus far unsuccessfully):

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! - read-only mount - specatator mount (like ro but no journal allocated for the mount, no fencing needed for failed node that was mounted as specatator) I'd call it real-read-only, and yes, that's very usefull mount. Could we get it for ext3, too?

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread Joel Becker
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:33:44PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: - read-only mount - specatator mount (like ro but no journal allocated for the mount, no fencing needed for failed node that was mounted as specatator) I'd call it real-read-only, and yes, that's very usefull mount. Could we

Re: GFS, what's remaining

2005-09-04 Thread David Teigland
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 10:28:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 05:44:03PM +0800, David Teigland wrote: On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: + gfs2_assert(gl-gl_sbd, atomic_read(gl-gl_count) 0,); what is gfs2_assert() about anyway?

  1   2   >