From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Dltie-0000w4-T7 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:20:04 -0700 Received: from agminet04.oracle.com ([141.146.126.231]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.41) id 1Dltib-0002Xp-O9 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:20:04 -0700 Received: from agminet04.oracle.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) j5OJJtY0019121 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:19:55 -0500 Received: from rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.49])j5OJJs0P019092 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:19:54 -0500 Received: from rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) j5OJJsPv011453 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 13:19:54 -0600 Received: from [138.2.230.92] (agraves-lnx.us.oracle.com [138.2.230.92]) j5OJJrb0011446 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 13:19:53 -0600 Message-ID: <42BC5CD9.2080005@oracle.com> From: Allan Graves MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------060807010904080105080303" Subject: [uml-devel] os_lock_file removal Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:19:53 -0400 To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060807010904080105080303 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi guys. I'm working on developing a cluster file system and I'd like to simulate concurrent shared storage access using uml and disk files. I traced down the file locking, and it seems that (assuming I have a cluster file system that keeps things up to date in the metadata of the filesystem) if I remove this function I should be able to have more than 1 instance accessing storage at the same time. I realize this is a bit dangerous, since it involves *all* block devices, but I don't see a much better way. COW is not what I'm looking for, and that seems to be the standard answer. Can anyone provide positive or negative feedback on this approach? Possibly a better approach? Thanks, Allan Graves --------------060807010904080105080303 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf8; name="allan.graves.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="allan.graves.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Allan Graves n:Graves;Allan email;internet:allan.graves@oracle.com tel;work:603-8973276 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard --------------060807010904080105080303-- ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel