My thinking when I wrote that question was a little sloppy, and the particular lock calls I mentioned aren't actually relevant to what I meant. Sorry. What I mean is that presumably most locks GFS takes out correspond to activity of a client process that needs to read or write the blocks covered by that lock. It therefore seems like it ought to be possible to determine which file the locked area belongs to, and then which process on the machine holding the lock is responsible for the activity which necessitated GFS taking out the lock. Am I making any more sense? On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 08:14 -0500, Michael Conrad Tadpol Tilstra wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:52:46PM -0500, Andrew C. Dingman wrote: > > Wouldn't each lock in GFS be used to impliment some sort of > > filesystem-level lock, such as an fcntl() or flock(), which would in > > turn belong to a process? > > Your question isn't parsing, but I'll try to answer anyways. > > flock and fcntl locks can be implemented. (and have been.) However they, > by themselves, are insuficent for creating a clustered filesystem. But > since those are advisory locks, they might exist, and even then they can > be ignored. So there might be some in the lock space, but there will > mostly be gfs locks. > > -- > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
