Skip to content

Conversation

@alex-rg
Copy link

@alex-rg alex-rg commented Oct 10, 2024

This might be useful to prevent data loss/corruption when we have simultaneous transfers of the same file.

We do the locking in the following way: lock is added to a separate object with the name <file_name>.<lock_name>, where <lock_name> is different from file's object numbers (it is basically a text string). On lock release, this object is removed. We use this ugly technique instead of locking the first object for the following reason: radosstriper does not like when it tries to create a new file and its first object already exists.

root added 2 commits October 9, 2024 13:53
This might be useful to prevent data loss/corruption when we have
simultaneous transfers of the same file.

We do the locking in the following way: locks are added on a separate
object with the name <file_name>.<lock_name>, where <lock_name> is
different from file's object numbers (it is basically a text string).
On lock release, this object is removed. We use this awkward tecnique
instead of locking the first object for the following reason:
radosstriper does not like when he tries to create a new file, and
its first object already exists.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant