it should be possible to mount another kernel export with -o nolock option and compile kernel on it. I'm just guessing when you mount with nolock option, we are mounting for mostly read purposes and not for critical writes. Regards, Rajesh Amaravathi, Software Engineer, GlusterFS RedHat Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Whit Blauvelt" <whit.gluster at transpect.com> To: "Rajesh Amaravathi" <rajesh at redhat.com> Cc: "David Coulson" <david at davidcoulson.net>, "Gluster General Discussion List" <gluster-users at gluster.org> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 9:56:28 PM Subject: Re: NFS mounts with glusterd on localhost - reliable or not? Say, is it possible to compile a kernel without whatever part of its NFS support competes with Gluster's locking? Whit On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 08:14:27AM -0400, Rajesh Amaravathi wrote: > I hope you do realize that two NLM implementations of the same version > cannot operate simultaneously in the same machine. I really look forward > to a solution to make this work, that'd be something. > > Regards, > Rajesh Amaravathi, > Software Engineer, GlusterFS > RedHat Inc. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Coulson" <david at davidcoulson.net> > To: "Rajesh Amaravathi" <rajesh at redhat.com> > Cc: "Tomasz Chmielewski" <mangoo at wpkg.org>, "Gluster General Discussion List" <gluster-users at gluster.org> > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 5:28:04 PM > Subject: Re: NFS mounts with glusterd on localhost - reliable or not? > > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users