[Cluster-devel] [GFS2 PATCH]

[Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 09:34 -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> | Hi,
> | 
> | If we are going to do this, then perhaps we should consider reading
> | in
> | the rindex on mount? That way it will always be uptodate, and we can
> | refuse to mount if the rindex is damaged which is probably cleaner
> | than
> | doing it after the event.
> | 
> | The only concern is the time taken to mount large filesystems. Having
> | said that the rindex should be contiguous on disk in most cases, so
> | it
> | should be a fairly fast operation. Worth considering, anyway I think,
> | 
> | Steve.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> That's not a bad idea, and we should consider it for a future enhancement.
> However, I think these checks still need to be here because there are
> other ways the rindex can get out of date and need to be re-read after
> mount. For example, if there was another intermediate gfs2_grow done on a
> different node.
> 
> BTW, I assume you saw my other patch from yesterday regarding gfs2_unlink, right?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bob Peterson
> Red Hat File Systems

Both patches now pushed to the -nmw tree, but I'd like to see a more
comprehensive fix for this in due course,

Steve.