From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [172.16.48.31]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kBCHkkxV025784 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:46:46 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.173]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kBCHkjQh025307 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:46:45 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 30so2058768ugs for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:46:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:46:43 -0500 From: "Boris Ostrovsky" Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM2 and OCFS2 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: 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: pcaulfie@redhat.com Cc: linux-lvm@redhat.com (Resending with cc: fixed) > It's true that lvm is not cluster-aware. What that means is that if you update the > volume groups on one node then the other nodes in the cluster will not see the > changes and you could end up with the block devices on the machines dangerously > out of sync. What if I can guarantee that other nodes will not access LVM metadata (i.e. they will not issue any LVM command) until I run 'vgchange -ay' on them? The only access that those other nodes will have to volumes is that they will have some of them mounted. Is this still dangerous? My (limited) understanding of metadata is that it is stored in the first few blocks of a disk (or striped, if necessary) and is cached in lvm.cache. vgchange will sync disk and cache, so it should be OK, right? Thanks. -boris > What you tried (it seems to me) is just created LVM volumes and run OCFS2 on > them. that will/ work provided you never change the volume groups!