From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <514450C2.4080005@hoster-ok.com> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:00:18 +0300 From: Vladislav Bogdanov MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20130315163124.GA1061@redhat.com> <51435E8D.7090105@hoster-ok.com> <20130315183810.GB10892@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130315183810.GB10892@redhat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM snapshot with Clustered VG [SOLVED] Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Teigland Cc: Andreas Pflug , linux-lvm@redhat.com 15.03.2013 21:38, David Teigland wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 08:46:53PM +0300, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: >> I also thought about dlm one (may be the next step :) ), > > Let me know if you decide to start work on this and I can probably lend > some help. > >> Of course, I fully agree that clvm is just a big hack from the today's >> point of view and something need to change here. > > Since you're open to hacking components together, here's another possible > hack: you could create a gfs2 file system on the shared storage, and use > file locks on gfs2 files. The gfs2 files could be the actual vm images, > but they do not have to be. You could still use lv's for vms directly, > and create empty files on gfs2 representing each lv. The virtlockd file > locks would be acquired on the empty gfs2 files, representing the lvs. > This is another indirect way of using dlm locks, since the gfs2 file locks > are passed to the dlm. That would not solve issue with exclusive LV activation which is required to take snapshots (and just for more safety), but prevents migration. Vladislav