Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262168AbVD1QqT (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:46:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262169AbVD1QqS (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:46:18 -0400 Received: from gate.in-addr.de ([212.8.193.158]:44928 "EHLO mx.in-addr.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262168AbVD1QqK (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:46:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:45:29 +0200 From: Lars Marowsky-Bree To: Daniel McNeil Cc: David Teigland , Steven Dake , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1b/7] dlm: core locking Message-ID: <20050428164529.GF21645@marowsky-bree.de> References: <20050425165826.GB11938@redhat.com> <1114466097.30427.32.camel@persist.az.mvista.com> <20050426054933.GC12096@redhat.com> <1114537223.31647.10.camel@persist.az.mvista.com> <20050427030217.GA9963@redhat.com> <20050427134142.GZ4431@marowsky-bree.de> <20050427142638.GG16502@redhat.com> <20050428123315.GP21645@marowsky-bree.de> <1114706362.18352.85.camel@ibm-c.pdx.osdl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1114706362.18352.85.camel@ibm-c.pdx.osdl.net> X-Ctuhulu: HASTUR User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1347 Lines: 31 On 2005-04-28T09:39:22, Daniel McNeil wrote: > Since a DLM is a distributed lock manager, its usage is entirely for > locking some shared resource (might not be storage, might be shared > state, shared data, etc). If the DLM can grant a lock, but not > guarantee that other nodes (including the ones that have been kicked > out of the cluster membership) do not have a conflicting DLM lock, then > any applications that depend on the DLM for protection/coordination > be in trouble. Doesn't the GFS code depend on the DLM not being > recovered until after fencing of dead nodes? It makes a whole lot of sense to combine a DLM with (appropriate) fencing so that the shared resources are protected. I understood David's comment to rather imply that fencing is assumed to happen outside the DLM's world in a different component; ie more of a comment on sane modularization instead of sane real-world configuration. Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br?e -- High Availability & Clustering SUSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/