On 10/24/2010 11:39 AM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
On 10/24/2010 05:20 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
This still sounds more like a Lustre issue than an ext4 one, Andreas can fill in
the technical details.
The underlying device handling is unrelated to Lustre. In that sense it
is just a local filesystem.
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.
Yes, 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.
What exactly is your question here? We use pacemaker/stonith to do the
fencing job.
What exactly do you want to clean up? The device is recovered by
journals, Lustre goes into recovery mode, clients reconnect, locks are
updated and incomplete transactions resend.
Cheers,
Bernd
What I don't get (certainly might just be me) is why this is a unique issue when
used by lustre. Normally, any similar type of fail over will clean up the local
file system normally before trying to re-export from the second node.
Why exactly can't you use the same type of recovery here? Is it the fencing
agent killing nodes on detection of the file system errors?
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
