Re: Ill-informed musings on chard
Roger Tsang <[email protected]> Tue, 9 Feb 2010 00:33:51 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.cluster.ssic.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 5:14 AM, John Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > In order to do filesystem failover we need to mount filesystems with the > "chard" flag, which ensures that on failover the backup node sees the > same filesystem state as the last one the primary node saw. This is > necessary to avoid programs running on nodes other than the one that > crashed seeing unexpected filesystem changes during the failover. > > As I understand it on Linux the chard flag effectively changes all > writes into synchronous writes. Is this correct? > > Incorrect. After reviewing OpenSSI code the chard flag does not change how writes are done in Linux. It is up to the user space programs to include the O_SYNC flag with the file descriptor to specify this behavior. We probably made an incorrect assumption about CFS based on our experience with the older releases. While looking over the code I believe I found a bug that explains why chard mounts sometimes seem slower. For csoft mounts there is a bug where dirty pages in the backing filesystem is not flushed during fsync syscall. So depending on various factors it could be a while until these dirty pages get flushed to disk. What effect would the "data=journal" ext3 mount option have? In fact, > isn't it needed? > > With the exception of cached data the surviving CFS nodes will see the state of the backing filesystem after journal recovery. So the answer depends on what you want. > As I remember the UnixWare cfs implementation would attempt to reduce > the performance loss of "char" mounts by checkpointing writes to the > filesystem backup node rather than forcing them to disk. > > Maybe we could obtain the same effect by writing our own version of the > Linux "jbd" (Journaling block device, http://kerneltrap.org/node/6741) > which would checkpoint stuff to another node, instead of to disk. (We'd > still need to force real user requested sync data to disk though.) > > Or maybe this is all nonsense. > > Maybe similar results can be achieved with battery backed cache and DRBD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ ssic-linux-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ssic-linux-devel