[Linux-cluster] DLM behavior after lockspace recovery

[David Teigland]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:32:38AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> But do you really think the dlm should pretend that a potentially 
> corrupt value is in fact good?  This seems like a very bad idea to me.
> In return for saving some bookkeeping in the very special case where you 
> have an incrementing lvb, you suggest imposing extra overhead on every 
> lvb update and having the dlm make false promises about data integrity.  
> I don't think this is a good trade.

Incorrect.  Nothing is corrupt, there's no "false promise", there's no
overhead to speak of, and restoring the last available value is standard
behavior.

-- 
Dave Teigland  <teigland at redhat.com>