From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web31713.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web31713.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.201.193]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id k778mwDW024819 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 01:49:02 -0700 Message-ID: <20060807084830.58133.qmail@web31713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 01:48:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Heilige Gheist Subject: Re: Concurrent mount of XFS over SAN In-Reply-To: <44D26D3E.5010708@exegy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Dave Lloyd Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Dave, That's 100% correct assuming you prohibit a shared access between the nodes. I didn't point out that we're dealing with filesystem failover setup. It's obvious that I can always fall back to the inter-node heart-beat to ensure that only one node is mounting the filesystem. I'm just wondering if there's any facility or accepted practice to enforce it. Thanks, Alan --- Dave Lloyd wrote: > Heilige Gheist wrote: > > Is there a way to prevent and/or detect concurrent mount of same > XFS > > SAN-based partition from several nodes? > > I had to fsck a filesystem losing some data after two nodes > happily > > mounted a filesystem from same SAN-based partition at the same > time and > > wrote into it. > > Thanks! > > > > --alan > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > I think that the generally accepted way is to zone at the switch or > the > storage array. > > -- > Dave Lloyd > Test Engineer, Exegy, Inc. > 314.450.5342 > dlloyd@exegy.com > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com