Re: [PATCH 1b/7] dlm: core locking

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2005-04-28T09:39:22, Daniel McNeil <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Since a DLM is a distributed lock manager, its usage is entirely for
> locking some shared resource (might not be storage, might be shared
> state, shared data, etc).   If the DLM can grant a lock, but not
> guarantee that other nodes (including the ones that have been kicked
> out of the cluster membership) do not have a conflicting DLM lock, then
> any applications that depend on the DLM for protection/coordination
> be in trouble.  Doesn't the GFS code depend on the DLM not being
> recovered until after fencing of dead nodes?

It makes a whole lot of sense to combine a DLM with (appropriate)
fencing so that the shared resources are protected. I understood David's
comment to rather imply that fencing is assumed to happen outside the
DLM's world in a different component; ie more of a comment on sane
modularization instead of sane real-world configuration.


Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@xxxxxxx>

-- 
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/