Re: [Mysqlfs-general] why fsck should not be run every mount

[Tony S. <tsh...@os...>]

FYI, that was my primary hope when I first started trying to use 
MySQL-fs. :)  Unfortunately on freebsd it won't ever do the inserts. :P 
  I tried...

So how much work are we talking to put in sane file locking?


Michal Ludvig wrote:
> Smart Weblications GmbH, Florian Wiessner wrote:
>> hi list,
>>
>>
>> i think we should make a binary fsck.mysqlfs without
>> having mysqlfs to do fsck everytime a fs is mounted.
>>
>> why this? because if you attend to use mysqlfs with mysql5 ndb you are
>> running into trouble.
>>
>> if some other servers are still using the fs via mysql-nbd, there
>> is a risk of destroying data when the fsck is run, when there are
>> still active nodes running using the fs.
>>
>> so we should build fsck.mysqlfs in a seperate binary.
>>
>>
>> what do you think?
> 
> I think that you shouldn't have mysqlfs mounted concurrently from 
> different clients at all. IIRC There is some locking that synchronizes 
> threads of the same process, but this locking doesn't span across 
> different processes / hosts.
> 
> MySQL fs isn't meant to be a clustered filesystem. Well, maybe later, 
> but not now.
> 
> Michal
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Mysqlfs-general mailing list
> Mys...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mysqlfs-general