From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:49:17 -0500 From: David Teigland Message-ID: <20160921184917.GB11843@redhat.com> References: <5208271474387670@web5h.yandex.ru> <7d6b51cd-1b39-4931-a4c6-6af80459c847@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <7d6b51cd-1b39-4931-a4c6-6af80459c847@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Shared LUN without CLM 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="utf-8" To: fatruden@yandex.com Cc: linux-lvm@redhat.com On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:46:12PM +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > Dne 20.9.2016 v 18:07 Руденко Александр napsal(a): > >Hi, friends. > > > >I have strange question) > > > >I have one shared LUN on many different hosts. > >LUN is PV in some VG. > > > >Each hosts can make any operation in this VG - create LV, remove LV, resize LV, etc. > >If i want access to same LV on same host, i take "lvscan" and "lvchange -aey /dev/VG/LV_name". > >I'm sure can't two modification VG in same time. > > > >It work fine for me. > > > >My question. > > > >Can i not use the CLVM extension? > > > >CLVM is great extension for LVM, but i will have more 100 nodes. > >This count not supported in corosync. > > > There is now (slowly) introduce another clustered locking support where > the instead of 'dlm' locking engine it's using 'sanlock' > > It's targeting the 'many-nodes' clusters, might be likely worth to check. > > It has some advantages over clvmd/dlm and on the other hand some > features are missing (i.e. remove node activation). > > But from the context you've show - it seems like it might be a good > fit to start playing with.. See here for more information: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/lvmlockd.8.html