From: Bryan O'Sullivan Subject: Re: High Availability NFS Proposal Date: 25 Aug 2002 21:36:33 -0700 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <1030336593.11097.11.camel@camp4.serpentine.com> References: <200208242216.g7OMG3802286@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, lmb@suse.de Return-path: Received: from dsl092-013-071.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.13.71] helo=pelerin.serpentine.com) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17jBcC-0000M1-00 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:36:36 -0700 To: James Bottomley In-Reply-To: <200208242216.g7OMG3802286@localhost.localdomain> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 15:16, James Bottomley wrote: > Unfortunately, our product, LifeKeeper, is more complex than just a simple two > node active passive cluster, so the usual just share /var/lib/nfs solution > won't work for us. What I'd like to propose instead is to place hooks inside > mountd and statd that would allow them to propagate the necessary state > information into a cluster. The best way I can think of is to designate two > executable hooks (say /var/lib/nfs/mountd-hook and /var/lib/nfs/statd-hook). What would you plan on sharing via these hooks that isn't already maintained in /var/lib/nfs? Why not use dnotify to capture changes to those files, and push them out as clients come and go?