[Lustre-discuss] Lustre locking

[Mag Gam]

Klaus:

You are correct. So, I suppose I need the local lock on my qmaster node?

Is that correct?

TIA

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Klaus Steden
<klaus.steden at technicolor.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mag,
>
> If I'm not mistaken, only qmaster writes to the DB, the execd process relays
> queries through a listening daemon using RPC on the qmaster host which
> speaks BDB on the back end.
>
> hth,
> Klaus
>
> On 1/16/09 4:22 PM, "Mag Gam" <magawake at gmail.com> etched on stone tablets:
>
>> Thanks Andreas.
>>
>> We also run Sun Grid Engine for our engineering department. Out setup
>> is basically like this:
>>
>> Master -- QMASTER (1 server)
>> Slaves -- EXECD (300 servers)
>>
>>
>> They are share a filesystem which is running of Lustre. Grid Engine
>> has a Berkeley Database as its backend. I am wondering if I need to
>> change all of my slaves and master to distributed locking or local
>> locking.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Andreas Dilger <adilger at sun.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 16, 2009  00:52 -0500, Mag Gam wrote:
>>>> At our university many of our students and professors use SQLite and
>>>> Berkley DB for their projects. Probally, BDB more than SQLite. Would I
>>>> we need to have Lustre mounted up a certain way to avoid corruption
>>>> via file locking? Any thoughts about this?
>>>
>>> That depends on how they use it.  Mounting Lustre with "-o localflock"
>>> will provide locking on a single node without any performance impact,
>>> which is enough for single-node databases like SQLite and Berkley DB.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Andreas
>>> --
>>> Andreas Dilger
>>> Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
>>> Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lustre-discuss mailing list
>> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>
>