On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 11:37:18AM -0500, Lon Hohberger wrote: > On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 18:01 -0600, Michael Gale wrote: > > But would you even need the GFS file system then ? Could each box just > > be accessing a reiserfs via the FC ? and let the application take care > > of the "locking" ? > > No, because metadata creation would not be synchronized. You'd end up > with a corrupt file system tree. It's not just the creation, it's the caching too, surely? The problem is that each system would end up with a different set of cached data (data & metadata), more than anything. If there was a way to get it to invalidate the cached data as required, and also serialise access so that 2 machines don't try to access the same bit of the filesystem at the same time, then it would work. And at that point, you've got GFS, AFAICT. Graham
