On Wed, 7 May 2008, Krishna Srinivas wrote:
Is this an issue in server-side-only AFR? I have two servers
which
are also clients of themselves, and they both list their local >
subvolume first and
remote subvolume second. Is this a problem? What are the possible
consequences of this?
It will be a problem. The "first" subvol is always the "lock"
server.
Consider a case where you are creating a file simultaneously
on two clients, only one of them should succeed. If AFR's
subvols order are not same, chances are that both client
returns success for file creation with same name.
Hence you have "option read-subvlume" to speeden the
read() calls so that it can be done from local subvol.
So, what happens if the "lock" server is the one that goes down? Will
that
render the whole AFR cluster inoperable, at least for writes?
If first server is down, the second one is tried and so on. The cluster
remains
operable.
Does the lock state remain for the locks when the primary/lock server dies?
If so, how?
If the server on which the lock was held goes down, the lock is lost.
Finally the
client will try to unlock on that server (it remembers) and fails.
In case client dies, the server removes all the locks held by that client.
Right, that's what I thought. Is a distributed and redundant lock-tracking
mechanism planned?
Gordan
