1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
|
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="joey"
subject="""comment 13"""
date="2015-11-13T18:23:37Z"
content="""
While testing a git-annex that used pid locks, on the Lustre
system I've been given access to, I observed something most
strange:
link(".git/annex/locktmp12011", ".git/annex/pidlock") = 0
lstat64(".git/annex/locktmp12011", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0444, st_size=70, ...}) = 0
lstat64(".git/annex/pidlock", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0444, st_size=70, ...}) = 0
...
unlink(".git/annex/pidlock") = 0
Seeing that strace, it would make sense that the pidlock file didn't exist,
since a hard link was successfully made by that name, and link() never,
ever overwrites an existing file. The stats of the 2 files are of course
identical since they're hard links. And, since the pidlock is unlinked at
the end, we'd expect the file to be gone then.
But, none of that has anything to do with the reality. Which was:
The pidlock file already existed, with size=72, and had existed for some
hours at the point the strace begins. The link didn't replace it
at all, and the unlink didn't delete it. When the program exited,
the pidlock file still existed, with contents unaltered.
All I can guess is happening is that different processes on a Lustre
filesystem, running on the same host, somehow see inconsistent realities.
I do think that, despite this being completely insane, the locking will
actually work ok, when all git-annex processes in a given repo on Lustre
are running *on the same computer*. That because git-annex actually will
drop a proper lock into a proper filesystem (/dev/shm), and so avoid all
this Lustre nonsense.
But in general, I can make no warantee express or implied as to the
suitability of Lustre as a platform to use git-annex. If it's this
inconsistent, and modifications made to files are somehow silently rolled
back, anything could happen.
"""]]
|
