re: [CI] dlm-CI patch (remove the dlmdu.)

[Aneesh K. K.V <ane...@di...>]

Hi,

Yes, What  David Chow is more worried about is the separate
communication channel needed for DLM. In the case of CI we already have
the IP based communication channel being used for cluster node
communication and I guess the production system will be running SSI
cluster with high speed switches . But from the opengfs perspective
asking for a expensive switch for just DLM may not be a cost effective
one. 

Yes we may need to change DLM  to  use CI even in node communication. CI
has the concept of throttling  that prevents the communication channel
between nodes from getting saturated. ( I guess it is not yet
implemented ). In that way we have a control over DLM messages. 


Any how  making DLM as the locking solution in  SSI/CI is something not
yet decided.So no need to worry about that :) 

-aneesh 



On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 20:12, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> 
> Did you see David Chow's message on the OpenGFS list that he had a recent discussion with some IBM engineers and they said that the IBM DLM has pretty excessive interconnect requirements.
> 
> Just a few nodes could saturate a 100 Mbit interconnect and that to do a large scale network, myrinet would be required.
> 
> Obviously it is nice that IBM's DLM (or OpenDLM) can utilize CI for node up/down monitoring, but it makes one wonder if this is the right locking solution to be a core piece of SSI/CI.
> 
> Greg Freemyer
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> ci-linux-devel mailing list
> ci-...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ci-linux-devel