xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Concurrent mount of XFS over SAN

To: Dave Lloyd <dlloyd@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Concurrent mount of XFS over SAN
From: Heilige Gheist <hgheist@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 01:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=MEYtgCenfGetXsntrF0xdXSR5V5x7H8yEerS4f+H/+axE+oL2jfJ94WfP2TJZngdglh77FOW9/45gNOEuL69uZpzZM7Qm+r6+VhskgBOpUKhyuXoXhL+fkzHXSUkikJH1Ukd8DV15X+EBBCbc6zV/auO0KMC3qyKywncRIjf59c= ;
In-reply-to: <44D26D3E.5010708@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
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 <dlloyd@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>