On 10/24/2010 10:30 AM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
On 10/24/2010 03:55 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 10/23/2010 06:17 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 06:00:05PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
IMHO, and I've said it before, the mount flag which Bernd requests
already exists, namely 'errors=', both as mount option and as
persistent default, but it is not enforced correctly on mount time.
If an administrator decides that the correct behavior when error is
detected is abort or remount-ro, what's the sense it letting the
filesystem mount read-write without fixing the problem?
Again, consider the case of the root filesystem containing an error.
When the error is first discovered during the source of the system's
operation, and it's set to errors=panic, you want to immediately
reboot the system. But then, when root file system is mounted, it
would be bad to have the system immediately panic again. Instead,
what you want to have happen is to allow e2fsck to run, correct the
file system errors, and then system can go back to normal operation.
So the current behavior was deliberately designed to be the way that
it is, and the difference is between "what do you do when you come
across a file system error", which is what the errors= mount option is
all about, and "this file system has some kind of error associated
with it". Just because it has an error associated with it does not
mean that immediately rebooting is the right thing to do, even if the
file system is set to "errors=panic". In fact, in the case of a root
file system, it is manifestly the wrong thing to do. If we did what
you suggested, then the system would be trapped in a reboot loop
forever.
- Ted
I am still fuzzy on the use case here.
In any shared ext* file system (pacemaker or other), you have some basic rules:
* you cannot have the file system mounted on more than one node
* failover must fence out any other nodes before starting recovery
* failover (once the node is assured that it is uniquely mounting the file
system) must do any recovery required to clean up the state
Using ext* (or xfs) in an active/passive cluster with fail over rules that
follow the above is really common today.
I don't see what the use case here is - are we trying to pretend that pacemaker
+ ext* allows us to have a single, shared file system in a cluster mounted on
multiple nodes?
The use case here is Lustre. I think ClusterFS and then later the Sun
Lustre group (Andreas Dilger, Alex Zhurlaev/Tomas, Girish Shilamkar)
contributed lots of ext3 and ext4 code, as Lustres underlying disk
format ldiskfs is based on ext3/ext4 (remaining patches, such as MMP are
supposed to be added to ext4 and others such as open-by-inode are
supposed to be given up, ones the vfs supports open-by-filehandle (or so)).
So Lustre mounts a device to a directory (but hides the content to user
space) and then makes the objects in filesystem available globally to
many clients. On first simple glance that is similar to NFS, but Lustre
combines the objects of many ldiskfs filesystems into a single global
filesystem. In order to provide to high-availability, you need to use
any kind of shared storage device. Internal raid1 is planned, but still
not available, so far only raid0 (striping) is supported.
This still sounds more like a Lustre issue than an ext4 one, Andreas can fill in
the technical details.
What ever shared storage sits under ext4 is irrelevant to the fail over case.
Unless Lustre does other magic, they still need to obey the basic cluster rules
- one mount per cluster.
If Lustre is doing the same trick you would do with active/passive failure over
clusters that export ext4 via NFS, you would still need to clean up the file
system before being able to re-export it from a fail over node.
Ric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
