[Lustre-discuss] Lustre locking
klaus.steden at technicolor.com
Fri Jan 16 20:03:03 PST 2009
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.
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
> Any thoughts?
> 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
More information about the lustre-discuss