gluster-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Gluster-devel] posix-locks problem


From: Kevan Benson
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] posix-locks problem
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:51:48 -0700
User-agent: KMail/1.7.1

Any consensus on whether flock support is planned for the future?  I seem to 
remember reading somewhere in the documentation that a native glusterfs 
client was being considered at some point in the future, which could make 
this feasible.

On Monday 06 August 2007 09:27, Amar S. Tumballi wrote:
> Thanks for pointing out the mistakes in wiki.. just corrected it.
>
> -amar
>
> On 8/6/07, Kevan Benson <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 August 2007 23:28, Vikas Gorur wrote:
> > > What you're trying to do is use flock(2) locks. flock(2) locks are not
> > > supported by FUSE. The lock requests will be handled by the kernel
> > > itself and never reach FUSE, let alone GlusterFS.
> > >
> > > The posix-locks translator implements the fcntl(2) locking API.
> > > fcntl(2) allows for more fine-grained locking, as it supports locking
> > > of particular regions inside a file --- whereas flock(2) locks are on
> > > the entire file.
> > >
> > > flock(2) and fcntl(2) locks can co-exist on Linux. There is absolutely
> > > no interaction between them.
> > >
> > > In summary, if you want distributed file locks, you should use the
> > > fcntl(2) API, not flock(2).
> >
> > Thanks.  Does that mean the the part of the FAQ that mentions flock along
> > with
> > fcntl is incorrect, or just mentioning a feature not supported _yet_?
> >
> >
> > http://www.gluster.org/docs/index.php/GlusterFS_FAQ#How_is_locking_handle
> >d.3F
> >
> > --
> > - Kevan Benson
> > - A-1 Networks
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gluster-devel mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

-- 
- Kevan Benson
- A-1 Networks




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]