[Dovecot] assertion failed

[Timo Sirainen]

On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 23:46 +0200, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 12:20:43AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > 
> > I haven't even started doing the index code cleanups. But I did write a
> > small summary about it:
> > http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2007-May/022591.html
> 
> Which got me thinking.. Do you think changing locking method might
> help with these assertion failures ? Currently we're using default
> lock_method, but maybe one of the others are more appropriate for
> shared file-systems ? ... maybe even just to change code paths if
> this is a race we're seeing. Any thoughts ?

Code paths between fcntl and flock are pretty much the same. Unless
there's a bug in GPFS it shouldn't make a difference which one you use.
You can always try of course. Changing to dotlock would make it use a
bit different code paths, but it also would make it slower.

The biggest difference is between mmap_disable=yes and =no, but unless
GPFS supports shared mmaps it's probably not a good idea to set that to
"no".

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20070514/0b331bd4/attachment.pgp