[Gluster-users] NFS mounts with glusterd on localhost - reliable or not?

David Coulson david at davidcoulson.net
Fri Jul 13 11:58:04 UTC 2012

Was that introduced by the same person who thought that binding to 
sequential ports down from 1024 was a good idea?

Considering how hard RedHat was pushing Gluster at the Summit a week or 
two ago, it seems like they're making it hard for people to really 
implement it in any capacity other than their Storage Appliance product.

Luckily I don't need locking yet, but I suppose RedHat will be happy 
when I do since I'll need to buy more GFS2 Add-Ons for my environment :-)


On 7/13/12 7:49 AM, Rajesh Amaravathi wrote:
> Actually, if you want to mount *any* nfs volumes(of Gluster) OR
> exports (of kernel-nfs-server), you cannot do it with locking on
> a system where a glusterfs(nfs process) is running(since 3.3.0).
> However, if its ok to mount without locking, then you should be
> able to do it on localhost.
> Regards,
> Rajesh Amaravathi,
> Software Engineer, GlusterFS
> RedHat Inc.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Coulson" <david at davidcoulson.net>
> To: "Tomasz Chmielewski" <mangoo at wpkg.org>
> Cc: "Rajesh Amaravathi" <rajesh at redhat.com>, "Gluster General Discussion List" <gluster-users at gluster.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 3:16:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] NFS mounts with glusterd on localhost - reliable or not?
> On 7/13/12 5:29 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>> Killing the option to use NFS mounts on localhost is certainly quite
>> the opposite to my performance needs!
> He was saying you can't run kernel NFS server and gluster NFS server at
> the same time, on the same host. There is nothing stopping you from
> mounting localhost:/volume on all your boxes. That is exactly how our
> 3.2.5 and 3.3.0 environments access volumes for the performance reasons
> you identified.

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list