Details

    • 9223372036854775807

    Description

      We should consider to enable the flock mount option by default, while still allowing localflock and noflock options for users that do not want this functionality.  From looking at issues reported on http://stackexchange.com/ and others, it seems that the lack of flock functionality by default is an obstacle for many users to use databases on top of Lustre.

      If the users are not using flock functionality, I don't think this adds any overhead, and if they are using this functionality then they want it enabled in any case.

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            [LU-10885] enable flock by default

            Oh, jeez - I'm not sure when that was written, but it's completely wrong.  It has no measurable impact on performance at all, unless you've got an app that ends up contending those locks between nodes, in which case it is asking for mutual exclusion, and we are only following its requests.  The only case where you'd see a performance hit is in the case of an app making heavy use of locks it doesn't need.  (I am not considering the case where the app makes heavy use of the locks for good reason.  In that case, it needs them for correct operation.)

            degremoa, can you link the wiki page or clean it up yourself?  It's just totally wrong.

            pfarrell Patrick Farrell (Inactive) added a comment - Oh, jeez - I'm not sure when that was written, but it's completely wrong.  It has no measurable impact on performance at all, unless you've got an app that ends up contending those locks between nodes, in which case it is asking for mutual exclusion , and we are only following its requests.  The only case where you'd see a performance hit is in the case of an app making heavy use of locks it doesn't need.  (I am not considering the case where the app makes heavy use of the locks for good reason.  In that case, it needs them for correct operation.) degremoa , can you link the wiki page or clean it up yourself?  It's just totally wrong.

            How this fit with this paragraph from Lustre wiki:

            flock: enable support for cluster-wide, coherent file locks. Must be applied to the mount commands for all clients that will be accessing common data requiring lock functionality. Cluster-wide locking will have a detrimental impact on file system performance, and should only be enabled when absolutely required. For some applications, the locking is only necessary on a sub-set of nodes. For example, the CTDB cluster framework used by Samba to provide a parallel, high-availability SMB gateway, relies on locking of a shared file when coordinating cluster start-up and recovery. However, only the CTDB nodes need to mount the Lustre file system with the flock option. This is an example of application or domain-specific lock requirements.

            If you really think there is very limited performance impact, we should probably revise this wiki page.

            degremoa Aurelien Degremont (Inactive) added a comment - How this fit with this paragraph from Lustre wiki: flock : enable support for cluster-wide, coherent file locks. Must be applied to the mount commands for all clients that will be accessing common data requiring lock functionality. Cluster-wide locking will have a detrimental impact on file system performance, and should only be enabled when absolutely required . For some applications, the locking is only necessary on a sub-set of nodes. For example, the CTDB cluster framework used by Samba to provide a parallel, high-availability SMB gateway, relies on locking of a shared file when coordinating cluster start-up and recovery. However, only the CTDB nodes need to mount the Lustre file system with the flock option. This is an example of application or domain-specific lock requirements. If you really think there is very limited performance impact, we should probably revise this wiki page.

            Oleg Drokin (green@whamcloud.com) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/34987/
            Subject: LU-10885 llite: enable flock mount option by default
            Project: fs/lustre-release
            Branch: b2_12
            Current Patch Set:
            Commit: 16fb13eb386380a4eb46b7e016a66cb38a01f54f

            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Oleg Drokin (green@whamcloud.com) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/34987/ Subject: LU-10885 llite: enable flock mount option by default Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: b2_12 Current Patch Set: Commit: 16fb13eb386380a4eb46b7e016a66cb38a01f54f

            Andreas Dilger (adilger@whamcloud.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/34987
            Subject: LU-10885 llite: enable flock mount option by default
            Project: fs/lustre-release
            Branch: b2_12
            Current Patch Set: 1
            Commit: 20ed66f1a6aac7623185da70da20950d22f4c666

            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Andreas Dilger (adilger@whamcloud.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/34987 Subject: LU-10885 llite: enable flock mount option by default Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: b2_12 Current Patch Set: 1 Commit: 20ed66f1a6aac7623185da70da20950d22f4c666
            pjones Peter Jones added a comment -

            Landed for 2.13

            pjones Peter Jones added a comment - Landed for 2.13

            Oleg Drokin (green@whamcloud.com) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/32091/
            Subject: LU-10885 llite: enable flock mount option by default
            Project: fs/lustre-release
            Branch: master
            Current Patch Set:
            Commit: 3613af3e15cbc6091e3a16c8caeb1307be2d91f6

            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Oleg Drokin (green@whamcloud.com) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/32091/ Subject: LU-10885 llite: enable flock mount option by default Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: Commit: 3613af3e15cbc6091e3a16c8caeb1307be2d91f6

            Oleg Drokin (green@whamcloud.com) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/32092/
            Subject: LU-10885 tests: fix up flocks_test bugs and code style
            Project: fs/lustre-release
            Branch: master
            Current Patch Set:
            Commit: 3ce41b7168f7a3b5bacb5ae35f278dce4a994fae

            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Oleg Drokin (green@whamcloud.com) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/32092/ Subject: LU-10885 tests: fix up flocks_test bugs and code style Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: Commit: 3ce41b7168f7a3b5bacb5ae35f278dce4a994fae

            Andreas Dilger (andreas.dilger@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/32092
            Subject: LU-10885 tests: clean up flocks_test code style
            Project: fs/lustre-release
            Branch: master
            Current Patch Set: 1
            Commit: 49e278280cb133a2b1b7db1debe1cd93a9fcb967

            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Andreas Dilger (andreas.dilger@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/32092 Subject: LU-10885 tests: clean up flocks_test code style Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: 1 Commit: 49e278280cb133a2b1b7db1debe1cd93a9fcb967

            Andreas Dilger (andreas.dilger@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/32091
            Subject: LU-10885 llite: enable flock mount option by default
            Project: fs/lustre-release
            Branch: master
            Current Patch Set: 1
            Commit: 40cf09afb13c6c773ec6781a54059c3472c7f15d

            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Andreas Dilger (andreas.dilger@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/32091 Subject: LU-10885 llite: enable flock mount option by default Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: 1 Commit: 40cf09afb13c6c773ec6781a54059c3472c7f15d

            I would offer one further thought - I've talked to people a few times who said "oh localflock makes the not supported message go away, that's fine, I'll run my app like that", without any idea what they were doing, risking incorrect operation in their multi-node app.  "flock" on by default makes perfect sense to me.  (Cray has added it everywhere years and years now.)

            paf Patrick Farrell (Inactive) added a comment - I would offer one further thought - I've talked to people a few times who said "oh localflock makes the not supported message go away, that's fine, I'll run my app like that", without any idea what they were doing, risking incorrect operation in their multi-node app.  "flock" on by default makes perfect sense to me.  (Cray has added it everywhere years and years now.)

            People

              pfarrell Patrick Farrell (Inactive)
              adilger Andreas Dilger
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              10 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: