Any consensus on whether flock support is planned for the future? I seem to remember reading somewhere in the documentation that a native glusterfs client was being considered at some point in the future, which could make this feasible. On Monday 06 August 2007 09:27, Amar S. Tumballi wrote: > Thanks for pointing out the mistakes in wiki.. just corrected it. > > -amar > > On 8/6/07, Kevan Benson <kbenson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sunday 05 August 2007 23:28, Vikas Gorur wrote: > > > What you're trying to do is use flock(2) locks. flock(2) locks are not > > > supported by FUSE. The lock requests will be handled by the kernel > > > itself and never reach FUSE, let alone GlusterFS. > > > > > > The posix-locks translator implements the fcntl(2) locking API. > > > fcntl(2) allows for more fine-grained locking, as it supports locking > > > of particular regions inside a file --- whereas flock(2) locks are on > > > the entire file. > > > > > > flock(2) and fcntl(2) locks can co-exist on Linux. There is absolutely > > > no interaction between them. > > > > > > In summary, if you want distributed file locks, you should use the > > > fcntl(2) API, not flock(2). > > > > Thanks. Does that mean the the part of the FAQ that mentions flock along > > with > > fcntl is incorrect, or just mentioning a feature not supported _yet_? > > > > > > http://www.gluster.org/docs/index.php/GlusterFS_FAQ#How_is_locking_handle > >d.3F > > > > -- > > - Kevan Benson > > - A-1 Networks > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gluster-devel mailing list > > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel -- - Kevan Benson - A-1 Networks
