From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wendy Cheng <wcheng@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:59:38 -0500
Subject: [Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] NLM failover unlock commands
In-Reply-To: <1200591323.13670.34.camel@dyn9047022153>
References: <20080110075959.GA9623@infradead.org>	
	<4788665B.4020405@redhat.com>
	<18315.62909.330258.83038@notabene.brown>	
	<478D14C5.1000804@redhat.com>
	<18317.7319.443532.62244@notabene.brown>	
	<478D3820.9080402@redhat.com>
	<20080117151007.GB16581@fieldses.org>	 <478F78E8.40601@redhat.com>
	<20080117163105.GG16581@fieldses.org>	
	<478F82DA.4060709@redhat.com> <20080117164002.GH16581@fieldses.org>
	<1200591323.13670.34.camel@dyn9047022153>
Message-ID: <478F978A.6010906@redhat.com>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Frank Filz wrote:
>
> I assume the intent here with this implementation is that the node
> taking over will start lock recovery for the ip address? With that
> perspective, I guess it would be important that each file system only be
> accessed with a single ip address otherwise lock recovery will not work
> correctly since another node/ip could accept locks for that filesystem,
> possibly "stealing" a lock that is in recovery. As I recall, our
> implementation put the entire filesystem cluster-wide into recovery
> during fail-over.
>
>   

We have 2 more patches on their way to this mailing that:

* Set per-ip based grace period
* Notify only relevant clients about reclaim events

-- Wendy