Hi, On Friday 06 April 2012 19:41:26 Brian Candler wrote: > On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 04:24:54PM +0200, Fran?ois Legal wrote: > > Anyway, I gave a test drive on this, and seem to be having locking > > issues (users on both side can modify the same file without anything > > preventing this). > > Can anybody comment on this. > That's just POSIX semantics. You could even have two users on the same > machine accessing the same file and modifying it concurrently. If you want > locks then (a) your application has to ask for them, and (b) other > applications must also respect them [unless you're talking about mandatory > locks, which are an unusual feature] At first glance, mandatory locks (in the fs for example) would be nice for vm hosting, at second glance, the simplier version would prevent live-migration. So one needs fs-level locking with app-intelligence and distribution of locks/unlocks/timeouts and all the stuff... (Read: dlm with pacemaker and fencing/stonith.) Have fun, Arnold -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20120407/ea17d19a/attachment.pgp>
