Re: NFS - lock failover

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:56:13PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:36:46AM +0100, Frank van Maarseveen wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 06:24:16PM +0100, Frank van Maarseveen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 07:07:22PM +0200, Pavel A wrote:
> > > > Hi everyone!
> > > > 
> > > > I was trying not to create new topics, but it seems that posting to an
> > > > old one doesn't bring it up. Here is the original topic I'm referring
> > > > to: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.nfs/13108
> > > > 
> > > > I'm building an A/A cluster using NFS v3 and local file systems, and
> > > > looking for
> > > > efficient ways for failover (for now I have to restart nfs-kernel-server on
> > > > Takeover node to be able to initiate grace period), so the discussed solutions
> > > > are very interesting to me.
> > > > 
> > > > Now (4 years after) in current nfs-utils packages (v. 1.2.2-4 and later) I can
> > > > see that the ability to release locks was really implemented and is
> > > > working well
> > > > (I mean interfaces /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_ip and
> > > > /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_filesystem),
> > > > but how about reacquiring locks on the node, share migrates to? - I've been
> > > > going through various mailing lists and found a lot of discussions on the topic
> > > > (also dated mainly 2007), but don't seem to find any rpc-based mechanism or
> > > > interface like /proc/fs/nfsd/nlm_set_grace to do that, was it ever made?
> > > 
> > > I've posted a patch some time ago implementing
> > > /proc/fs/nfsd/relock_filesystem:
> > > 
> > > 	http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.nfs/42360
> > > 	http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.nfs/42361
> > > 	http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.nfs/42362
> > 
> > Can this patch be scheduled for inclusion in mainline (3.3)?
> 
> Could you resend and I'll take another look?

I'll check it again but except for one fuzz it should still apply on
3.2-rc. Patch offsets and an incidental fuzz is sometimes informative
about possible conflict areas. It has been verified on 3.0 and 3.1

> 
> But this should really be fixed to handle v4 locks as well.

Why do you think it doesn't?

-- 
Frank
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux