Was that introduced by the same person who thought that binding to sequential ports down from 1024 was a good idea? Considering how hard RedHat was pushing Gluster at the Summit a week or two ago, it seems like they're making it hard for people to really implement it in any capacity other than their Storage Appliance product. Luckily I don't need locking yet, but I suppose RedHat will be happy when I do since I'll need to buy more GFS2 Add-Ons for my environment :-) David On 7/13/12 7:49 AM, Rajesh Amaravathi wrote: > Actually, if you want to mount *any* nfs volumes(of Gluster) OR > exports (of kernel-nfs-server), you cannot do it with locking on > a system where a glusterfs(nfs process) is running(since 3.3.0). > However, if its ok to mount without locking, then you should be > able to do it on localhost. > > Regards, > Rajesh Amaravathi, > Software Engineer, GlusterFS > RedHat Inc. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Coulson" <david at davidcoulson.net> > To: "Tomasz Chmielewski" <mangoo at wpkg.org> > Cc: "Rajesh Amaravathi" <rajesh at redhat.com>, "Gluster General Discussion List" <gluster-users at gluster.org> > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 3:16:38 PM > Subject: Re: NFS mounts with glusterd on localhost - reliable or not? > > > On 7/13/12 5:29 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: >> Killing the option to use NFS mounts on localhost is certainly quite >> the opposite to my performance needs! >> > He was saying you can't run kernel NFS server and gluster NFS server at > the same time, on the same host. There is nothing stopping you from > mounting localhost:/volume on all your boxes. That is exactly how our > 3.2.5 and 3.3.0 environments access volumes for the performance reasons > you identified.
