From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [10.33.0.40] (breeves.fab.redhat.com [10.33.0.40]) by pobox.fab.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l9H8Oqxm028642 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:24:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4715C663.5010803@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:22:59 +0100 From: "Bryn M. Reeves" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] cluster LVM References: <4714C8C6.7060204@cesca.es> <4715C594.4010406@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4715C594.4010406@redhat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: LVM general discussion and development -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Patrick Caulfield wrote: > Jordi Prats wrote: >> Hi all, >> I've been googling for a while but I found nothing about the current >> limitations of CLVM. Someone told me that you must use just one logical >> volume for each volume group. Is that true? > > No, you can have as many LVs in a VG as you like. I think Jordi's referring to the HA-LVM agents in rgmanager, which do (did?) require that each VG contain only a single LV in order to guarantee metadata consistency when a HA-LVM resource is relocated within the cluster. Regards, Bryn. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHFcZj6YSQoMYUY94RAq4vAJ9tXKh6xz7slxR+6rF8hR0HQPa32QCdED1m rrWCvxKZVcSctaT2zPdhwXU= =W87k -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----