From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Marcin M. Jessa" Subject: Re: KVM, iSCSI and High Availability Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:22:54 +0200 Message-ID: <4D90EE1E.9040705@yazzy.org> References: <4D8CFA90.20605@yazzy.org> <4D908326.6050904@redhat.com> Reply-To: lists@yazzy.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mx2.eit.no ([66.220.0.192]:56581 "EHLO mx2.eit.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754274Ab1C1UW5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:22:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4D908326.6050904@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 3/28/11 2:46 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 03/25/2011 10:26 PM, Marcin M. Jessa wrote: [...] > > One LUN per image allows you to implement failover, LVM doesn't (but > cluster-LVM does). I recommend using one LUN per image; it's much simpler. Some people say "Use one LUN, it's easier and use CLVM". Why is it easier to use CLVM and one LUN per virtual guest? -- Marcin M. Jessa