From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2FBFC433FE for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 14:42:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1667313765; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=AVO1uwKQRy5iaO3/H3i1gWufBdbpwUx6xAEh5hzIxR4=; b=b7PyaB5B1j3e3VTCezSm7ZPDo1ZE+xdck64XmpFjhQh1rNk3+cJ5NfMwNm+S/v2Bru82ML L3hUkXvurgoebUNOvAfQXtbCIgrqjMcovrNmSgHeCetYA6Gm4vAZPVNZaD/87MlSdFWPSP p76TjO5knmtV61J8jt26F5iLKhQy8RU= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-335-sYsam7dGOpayUl5ZFOW3NA-1; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 10:42:42 -0400 X-MC-Unique: sYsam7dGOpayUl5ZFOW3NA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F02629ABA13; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 14:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (unknown [10.30.29.100]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134CA4B3FC6; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 14:42:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37E01946A42; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 14:42:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D081946594 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 14:42:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id B9643492B33; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 14:42:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (null.msp.redhat.com [10.15.80.136]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E052492B18; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 14:42:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 09:42:30 -0500 From: David Teigland To: Zhiyong Ye Message-ID: <20221101144230.GA11193@redhat.com> References: <4b031c4d-b83a-cc92-fabf-cc9cefb4e491@bytedance.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4b031c4d-b83a-cc92-fabf-cc9cefb4e491@bytedance.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] How to implement live migration of VMs in thinlv after using lvmlockd X-BeenThere: linux-lvm@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development Cc: damon.devops@gmail.com, LVM general discussion and development Errors-To: linux-lvm-bounces@redhat.com Sender: "linux-lvm" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.9 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 01:36:17PM +0800, Zhiyong Ye wrote: > Hi all, > > I want to implement live migration of VMs in the lvm + lvmlockd + sanlock > environment. There are multiple hosts in the cluster using the same iscsi > connection, and the VMs are running on this environment using thinlv > volumes. But if want to live migrate the vm, it will be difficult since > thinlv which from the same thin pool can only be exclusive active on one > host. > > I found a previous subject that discussed this issue: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20180305165926.GA20527@redhat.com/ Hi, in that email I tried to point out that the real problem is not the locking, but rather the inability of dm-thin to share a thin pool among multiple hosts. The locking restrictions just reflect that technical limitation. Dave _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/