[Linux-cluster] GFS 6.0 Questions

[Michael Conrad Tadpol Tilstra]

Gerald G. Gilyeat wrote:
> Thanks a bunch. 
> The direction I was leaning on going, then, seems appropriate. I love
> it when things start coming together.
> 
> Is there anyway to get some of these undocumented tunable features,
> well, documented? I couldn't for the life of me find anything indicating
> if the lock highwater mark was runtime tunable, for example.

erm, get me not busy enough that I have time to document stuff?
its on my list of things todo, really.  its just at the bottom somewhere.

> There is -some- concern about memory usage tanking things, but that
> will probably end up leading us to simply moving to dedicated locking
> servers instead of having them on the actual shared production machines
> (and really, we'd only need two...'f1' is strictly for management type
> work and backups...)

> Finally - so while it's -possible- to have the GFS "stuff" on a
> separate interface (and yes, it was a royal PITA getting it to work in
> the first place what with multiple NICs already...), it's not somthing
> that's at all easy to do, at least until the mentioned fix drops? bleh.

Work around is described here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/beta/show_bug.cgi?id=131142
Not that difficult, just ugly.  The problem is that gulm wants 
hostname==ip==node, and with multiple NICs, that's not the case any more.

-- 
michael conrad tadpol tilstra
<my wit is my doom>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20050215/fdb2587f/attachment.sig>