From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM/RAID again Message-Id: <20020306181319.C12548@connectlive.com> References: <20020306203532.GA622@human.galaxy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020306203532.GA622@human.galaxy>; from frank.lenaerts@advalvas.be on Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:35:32PM +0100 Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed Mar 6 17:13:01 2002 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com Having used and despised VxVM on Solaris before, and finding out about Heartbeat since then, I'd look into attached enclosures shared physically on a SCSI bus (there is an article in SysAdmin magazine that I used for my starting point) and serial heartbeats across the nodes, if the cluster is simple enough... if not post to the linux-HA list :-) Quoth Frank Lenaerts: > I've been reading several LVM/RAID postings on this mailinglist to > find out if someone else is also having the same question as I have, > but this does not seem to be the case; I hope this is the right place > to ask this. > > As LVM does not provide RAID1 (etc.) as VXVM does with its plexes, I > wanted to use LVM on top of the standard Linux metadevices > (RAID1). However, I wanted to do this for a cluster system using a > shared SCSI bus. I am aware of the fact that ownership of disks is > important, while something like LVM actually tries to abstract this > away, but I want to use LVM to be able to extend the filesystem, to > take snapshot backups etc.. The problem I currently face however, is > the fact that both nodes autodetect the metadevices and start syncing > the mirrors, independently of each other (I do not have the LVM and > cluster software installed on these machines yet). The synchronization > however, is initiated by the raidstart command, that is true (it is > not the detection itself which does this), but I wonder how I should > solve this problem. Below, some ideas that come to my mind: > > - do not use LVM at all, just use the physical disks instead > > - have two separate raidtab files where each of them is only "owned" > by a single node (to prevent syncing problems) and only start the > raid for a certain metadevice when a logical volume is imported on a > node > > What do you think about this? > > -- > frank.lenaerts@advalvas.be -- "To be suspended from the legal profession is the moral equivalent of being ostracized by child molesters." --Ian Rowan