Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 11:32, Brian Candler wrote:
I can see issues with numbers of filehandles/sockets on the lock server process itself, so you'd have to tweak kernel parameters on a busy system. Perhaps you could have a pool of lockserver processes listening on different ports, and use a hash of the directory name to work out which one to connect to?
Might be useful, but you'd probably want to have redundancy as well as load balancing. Might not be that easy to implement.
How about distributed lock manager which sits on every node? It could communicate with other nodes by multicast, although keeping the lock would require heartbeat packets instead of just keeping TCP session open, thus causing more interrupts and context switches :-(
-- Tomi Hakala