On 5/18/07, Christopher G. Stach II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Strachan wrote: > On 5/18/07, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 5/17/07, felipera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > I am trying to setup two MQ Servers (4.1.1), sharing the same data >> directory >> > (I tried Derby and Kaha), on top of OCFS, but the locking doesn't >> seem to be >> > working. It works fine when both MQs are running on the same server >> (still >> > using OCFS). I see the second MQ waiting for the lock to be released >> > ("Journal is locked... waiting 10 seconds for the journal to be >> unlocked."). >> > That's why I am not sure if it's a OCFS issue. But when I run each >> MQ in >> > separate boxes (still sharing the same data directory using OCFS) it >> doesn't >> > work, they both start successfully. >> >> This is the OCFS you're talking about right? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCFS2 > > Actually OCFS2 seems more like a real distributed file system for > general purpose use; the OCFS looks more specifically for using to > host oracle data tables. Am wondering how good the file locking is on > OCFS? Certainly its clear the mutex file locking from Java isn't > supported on OCFS. >OCFS2 properly supports POSIX locking semantics with fcntl. lockf and flock aren't supported yet. If that's what the JVM uses under the covers, you're out of luck. If this is about OCFS and not OCFS2, I'm really sorry. :)
Thanks for the heads up! :) I guess we could make the locking strategy pluggable & we could have some implementation call the fcntl locking. e.g. maybe using Jtux http://www.basepath.com/aup/jtux/ -- James ------- http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
