On Monday 05 September 2005 23:58, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 00:07, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Monday 05 September 2005 23:02, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > By the way, you said "alpha server" not "alpha servers", was that just a > > > slip? Because if you don't have a cluster then why are you using a dlm? > > > > No, it is not a slip. The application is running on just one node, so we > > do not really use "distributed" part. However we make heavy use of the > > rest of lock manager features, especially lock value blocks. > > Urk, so you imprinted on the clunkiest, most pathetically limited dlm feature > without even having the excuse you were forced to use it. Why don't you just > have a daemon that sends your values over a socket? That should be all of a > day's coding. > Umm, because when most of the code was written TCP and the rest was the clunkiest code out there? Plus, having a daemon introduces problems with cleanup (say process dies for one reason or another) whereas having it in OS takes care of that. > Anyway, thanks for sticking your head up, and sorry if it sounds aggressive. > But you nicely supported my claim that most who think they should be using a > dlm, really shouldn't. Heh, do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without ever seeing the code? -- Dmitry -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
