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 22:31:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4D90F03F.6050907@yazzy.org> References: <452218633.11421.1301329265221.JavaMail.root@mail1.martinsales.net> Reply-To: lists@yazzy.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: David Martin Return-path: Received: from mx2.eit.no ([66.220.0.192]:56578 "EHLO mx2.eit.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752974Ab1C1UcA (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:32:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <452218633.11421.1301329265221.JavaMail.root@mail1.martinsales.net> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 3/28/11 6:21 PM, David Martin wrote: [...] >> CLVM was more complicated initially but is pretty once we got through >> that. Having to hack around in the SAN manager and then going to the >> hosts to mess with the multipath configs etc gets old fast. However if >> your setup is pretty static then I guess it wouldn't matter. So you would also use one LUN per guest? My setup is pretty static but it is possible I would add additional guests and/or hosts to the setup. What about high avaliability? Would it be reasonable to use OpenAIS + Pacemaker to bring up guests on a different hosts if the "main" hosts was down for maintenance or similar? How is OCFS2 compared to CLVM? -- Marcin M. Jessa