From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m788dqhe018757 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2008 04:39:52 -0400 Received: from smtp-msa-out01.orange.fr (smtp-msa-out01.orange.fr [193.252.23.120]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m788deU3029589 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2008 04:39:40 -0400 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2353.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 097AB700008A for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:39:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [172.20.20.150] (LPuteaux-151-41-11-129.w217-128.abo.wanadoo.fr [217.128.26.129]) by mwinf2353.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id D37C17000089 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:39:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <489C0647.9070101@squirk.org> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:39:35 +0200 From: Jean Spirat MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] the lvm shared storage question of the week References: <48985774.2080509@squirk.org> <54CA3782-8BC9-4F64-B209-2066B2315E77@redhat.com> <489946F6.60706@squirk.org> <1218133329.4013.20.camel@dogen.thepride.> In-Reply-To: <1218133329.4013.20.camel@dogen.thepride.> 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"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development > CLVM needs a distributed lock manager to work (which communicates over > the network, not via the disk). This is usually provided with the help > of the RedHat Cluster Suite. > locking on the disk seems easier to setup than network port firewall rules and so on but if it was not done i assume there was a good reason for it that my poor brain cannot see :) if each node is gived a unique key then you could use on disk locking with a special lock metadata and a timestamps for reloading configuration for the other node. Of course it seems too easy to have not been thinked about so there must be a major flaw in my thinking :) > by default, locking type 2 or 3 requires clvmd, which as I say will > require a cluster setup of some kind. > > You *can* work without a cluster manager but I'm not sure how advised it > is. So you leave your locking type as 1 and use "lvchange > --refresh /dev/vg/*" on all nodes to reload metadata from disk whenever > you make a change. Can be a bit risky. > > John. > strange that this use case has not handled in an safer/easier way :) if each lvm partition is mounted on only one box where does the risk lies in your opinion ? regards, Jean.