From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: GFS, what's remainingh Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 00:05:58 -0500 Message-ID: <200509060005.59578.dtor_core@ameritech.net> References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com> <200509052307.27417.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <200509060058.44934.phillips@istop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lars Marowsky-Bree , Andi Kleen , linux clustering , akpm@osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from smtp111.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([68.142.229.94]:16256 "HELO smtp111.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932399AbVIFFGC (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2005 01:06:02 -0400 To: Daniel Phillips In-Reply-To: <200509060058.44934.phillips@istop.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Monday 05 September 2005 23:58, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 00:07, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Monday 05 September 2005 23:02, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > By the way, you said "alpha server" not "alpha servers", was that just a > > > slip? Because if you don't have a cluster then why are you using a dlm? > > > > No, it is not a slip. The application is running on just one node, so we > > do not really use "distributed" part. However we make heavy use of the > > rest of lock manager features, especially lock value blocks. > > Urk, so you imprinted on the clunkiest, most pathetically limited dlm feature > without even having the excuse you were forced to use it. Why don't you just > have a daemon that sends your values over a socket? That should be all of a > day's coding. > Umm, because when most of the code was written TCP and the rest was the clunkiest code out there? Plus, having a daemon introduces problems with cleanup (say process dies for one reason or another) whereas having it in OS takes care of that. > Anyway, thanks for sticking your head up, and sorry if it sounds aggressive. > But you nicely supported my claim that most who think they should be using a > dlm, really shouldn't. Heh, do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without ever seeing the code? -- Dmitry