Re: [Gluster-devel] distributed locking

[Anand Avati]

Hi,
 we are working on this report. will keep the ML updated about it.

thanks,
avati

2007/12/1, Székelyi Szabolcs <address@hidden>:
>
> Brian Taber wrote:
> > The Gluster mounts had no problem:
> >
> > TEST : TRY TO WRITE ON A READ
> >
> LOCK:.==================================================================================================.==
> > TEST : TRY TO WRITE ON A WRITE
> >
> LOCK:====================================================================================================
> > TEST : TRY TO READ  ON A READ
> >
> LOCK:====================================================================================================
> > TEST : TRY TO READ  ON A WRITE
> >
> LOCK:====================================================================================================
> > TEST : TRY TO SET A READ  LOCK ON A READ
> >
> LOCK:====================================================================================================
> > TEST : TRY TO SET A WRITE LOCK ON A WRITE
> >
> LOCK:====================================================================================================
> > TEST : TRY TO SET A WRITE LOCK ON A READ
> >
> LOCK:====================================================================================================
> > TEST : TRY TO SET A READ  LOCK ON A WRITE
> >
> LOCK:====================================================================================================
> > TEST : TRY TO READ LOCK THE WHOLE FILE BYTE BY
> >
> BYTE:====================================================================================================
> > TEST : TRY TO WRITE LOCK THE WHOLE FILE BYTE BY
> >
> BYTE:====================================================================================================
> >
> > process number : 100 - Remote clients: 2 local client 1 - Total client 3
> -
> > Total concurent tests: 300
> > process number running test successfully :
> > 300 process of 300 successfully ran test : WRITE ON A READ  LOCK
> > 300 process of 300 successfully ran test : WRITE ON A WRITE LOCK
> > 300 process of 300 successfully ran test : READ  ON A READ  LOCK
> > 300 process of 300 successfully ran test : READ  ON A WRITE LOCK
> > 300 process of 300 successfully ran test : SET A READ  LOCK ON A
> READ  LOCK
> > 0 process of 300 successfully ran test : SET A WRITE LOCK ON A WRITE
> LOCK
> > 0 process of 300 successfully ran test : SET A WRITE LOCK ON A
> READ  LOCK
> > 0 process of 300 successfully ran test : SET A READ  LOCK ON A WRITE
> LOCK
> > 300 process of 300 successfully ran test : READ LOCK THE WHOLE FILE BYTE
> > BY BYTE
> > 300 process of 300 successfully ran test : WRITE LOCK THE WHOLE FILE
> BYTE
> > BY BYTE
>
> Well, I wouldn't say that the 'SET A WRITE LOCK ON A WRITE LOCK' test
> was successful, for example... An '=' printed means that the lock call
> completed successfully, but it doesn't mean that the result is correct.
> Some calls *should* fail. In particular, the 'SET A WRITE LOCK ON A
> WRITE LOCK' test should print 'x's. In this case, the result means that
> all clients could successfully lock a file... that was already locked!
>
> --
> cc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>



-- 
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account
Hofstadter's Law.

-- Hofstadter's Law