[Ocfs2-users] Postfix cluster with OCFS2 mboxes?

[Sunil Mushran]

That error message is not only harmless but was silenced in OCFS2 1.2.1.
Means you are running a fairly old release.

Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who is running a Postfix cluster with
> shared mboxes mounted on an OCFS2 volume.  (It looks like directory
> entries aren't indexed/hashed on OCFS2, so this rules out Maildirs --
> please correct me if this has changed.)  Here follows some of my
> notes/questions:
>
> I have a four node VMware team set up running a fairly untuned Postfix
> 2.2 setup on Debian testing.  (Presumably there's nothing wrong with
> running OCFS2 on non-commercial distros that haven't been blessed by
> Oracle.)
>
> Access to shared storage is via AoE (vblade on another machine on the
> LAN).
>
> On Debian's 2.6.16-2 kernel I was able to trigger a BUG on one of the
> nodes while stress-testing Postfix, see:
>
>     http://edmonds.ath.cx/ocfs2_node1_log.txt
>
> Is this anything dangerous?  I've upgraded to Debian's 2.6.17-2 kernel
> and I haven't been able to trigger it so far.
>
> Under stress-testing (i.e., mailbombing) I see a certain percentage of
> mail getting deferred but eventually delivered:
>
> Aug 20 20:23:00 node2 postfix/virtual[3696]: 3D04C54BE3:
> to=<user1 at test.localdomain>, relay=virtual, delay=9240, status=deferred
> (mailbox /var/mail/test.localdomain/user1: unable to lock for exclusive
> access: Resource temporarily unavailable)
>
> Is there any way to reduce this lock contention?  I assume this will be
> less of an issue when running on non-virtual hardware with faster I/O
> and a far smaller mail load?
>
> I also see to a lesser degree messages in syslog of this form:
>
>     (2703,0):ocfs2_extent_map_insert:603 ERROR: status = -17
>
> Where the only variant is the first number in the tuple.  What does this
> mean?  Is it harmless?
>
> Thanks!
>
>