From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5142E33F.2060002@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:00:47 +0100 From: Zdenek Kabelac MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <513090CA.8050904@pse-consulting.de> <5136F2F1.3020202@pse-consulting.de> <5136F738.1010707@hoster-ok.com> <5137091A.4070300@pse-consulting.de> <51370DDB.5010002@hoster-ok.com> <5137137B.5010800@pse-consulting.de> <5137267A.7040000@hoster-ok.com> <513733C0.2020207@pse-consulting.de> <5137447B.7030906@hoster-ok.com> <514097C8.4030602@pse-consulting.de> <5140AF20.7060406@hoster-ok.com> <5140B968.4030800@pse-consulting.de> <5140C5E2.8050203@hoster-ok.com> <514247D5.8000605@pse-consulting.de> In-Reply-To: <514247D5.8000605@pse-consulting.de> 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"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development Cc: Vladislav Bogdanov , Andreas Pflug Dne 14.3.2013 22:57, Andreas Pflug napsal(a): > On 03/13/13 19:30, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: >> >>> Is there a way to find out if a LV is locked exclusively? lvs displaying >>> -e-- instead of -a-- would be nice. Seems not even lvdisplay knows about >>> exclusive locking. >> That would break other tools which rely on their output. F.e. cluster >> resource agents of libvirt (yes, it runs lvm tools rather then using >> API, which is not yet complete btw). As I also need to obtain this >> information, I think about writing simple tool (f.e. clvm_tool) which >> would display needed info. >> >> As a workaround you can run lvchange -aly without force parameter. If it >> succeeds, the volume is locked in a shared mode, otherwise it is locked >> exclusively. > > Hm, thats one ugly workaround... > How about a clvmd option, something like -l to list all locks and exit. > I think - the extension to 'lvs' command could be relatively simple (adding a new column) You may query for exclusive/local activation on the node. (So you cannot just tell on which other node is the device active, but you could print about these states: active exclusive local active exclusive active local active Zdenek