From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5148874A.2060106@hoster-ok.com> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:42:02 +0300 From: Vladislav Bogdanov MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1363699970-10002-1-git-send-email-bubble@hoster-ok.com> <1363699970-10002-11-git-send-email-bubble@hoster-ok.com> <20130319153215.GB986@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130319153215.GB986@redhat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] [PATCH 10/10] man: document --node option to lvchange 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: linux-lvm@redhat.com 19.03.2013 18:32, David Teigland wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 01:32:50PM +0000, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: >> +.B \-\-node \fINodeID >> +Perform specified activation command on a remote cluster node (the same to running >> +corresponding command on that node locally). >> +Currently tested only for corosync clusters (\fB-I\fP \fIcorosync\fP option to clvmd) >> +for corosync versions from 2.0. >> +If corosync configuration has node names in a nodelist (nodelist.node.X.name = name >> +in CMAP tems) or node names are used for ring0_addr (nodelist.node.X.ring0_addr = name), >> +then that names may be used as NodeID. Otherwise numeric node IDs should be used. > > lvm tools should move away from doing remote command execution. For me that is just convenient - why not?. > As you mentioned before, this is the equivalent of "ssh node lvchange". > ssh or some other tool outside lvm is the right way to run the remote > commands. I think about porting this to LVM API as well, and use it in libvirt. > Also, lvm should not assume that it's using dlm/corosync, or that this > kind of remote option will be possible to support. That all was already "almost" supported by clvmd. I only pass node id from command line to an existing clvm header (and fix some related functions). All cluster/dlm staff is in corosync clvmd module - so both clvmd and tools are cluster-stack-agnostic. May be the same is possible for both cman and openais modules - I do not know because I do not use them and do not plan to. You know they both are almost dead, and only corosync/dlm actually remains. And... Every cluster has nodes. Clustered LVM VG assumes you have cluster. Why not be cluster-aware in tools then?