Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "ofdlck".
2019 Dec 28
3
Locking without virtlockd (nor sanlock)?
...d in my
qemu.conf file, I was expecting that no locks were used to protect my
virtual disk from guest double-start or misassignement to other vms.
However, "cat /proc/locks" shows the following (17532905 being the vdisk
inode):
[root@localhost tmp]# cat /proc/locks | grep 17532905
42: OFDLCK ADVISORY READ -1 fd:00:17532905 201 201
43: OFDLCK ADVISORY READ -1 fd:00:17532905 100 101
Indeed, try to associate and booting the disk to another machines give
me an error (stating that the disk is alredy in use).
Enabling the "lockd" plugin and starting the same machine, "ca...
2019 Dec 28
0
Re: Locking without virtlockd (nor sanlock)?
...ecting that no locks were used to protect
> my virtual disk from guest double-start or misassignement to other
> vms.
>
> However, "cat /proc/locks" shows the following (17532905 being the
> vdisk inode):
> [root@localhost tmp]# cat /proc/locks | grep 17532905
> 42: OFDLCK ADVISORY READ -1 fd:00:17532905 201 201
> 43: OFDLCK ADVISORY READ -1 fd:00:17532905 100 101
> Indeed, try to associate and booting the disk to another machines give
> me an error (stating that the disk is alredy in use).
>
> Enabling the "lockd" plugin and starting th...
2020 Jan 03
2
Re: Locking without virtlockd (nor sanlock)?
...protect
> > my virtual disk from guest double-start or misassignement to other
> > vms.
> >
> > However, "cat /proc/locks" shows the following (17532905 being the vdisk
> > inode):
> > [root@localhost tmp]# cat /proc/locks | grep 17532905
> > 42: OFDLCK ADVISORY READ -1 fd:00:17532905 201 201
> > 43: OFDLCK ADVISORY READ -1 fd:00:17532905 100 101
> > Indeed, try to associate and booting the disk to another machines give
> > me an error (stating that the disk is alredy in use).
> >
> > Enabling the "lockd&quo...
2024 Mar 21
1
byte range lock for Write starting on Zero and negative length ( -9223372036854775808 )
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 12:30:11PM +0000, Antonio via samba wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>I'm sorry to bother the list with a problem that I am not sure
>originates in Samba.
>File server (no domain) is serving a mix of Windows 10 and Centos 7
>clients, I have strange byte range locks.
>
>- Server is Samba 4.17.5 / Kernel 5.14.0 Rocky 9.2
>
>smbstatus -B gives:
>