On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 09:59:12PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > When you get to that level of cleverness, it seems to me that it is verging > on a complete re-implementation of DLM (distributed lock manager), which > really, AFAIK, needs a proper cluster setup so it can safely fence > mis-behaving nodes, and avoid quorum/split-brain problems. I've been toying with the idea of using DLM for libvirt earlier this year [1](but infered from other postings on the list that this would be out of scope for libvirt - probably should have asked). I looked at vm based locks then but having storage based locks is even better. Currently you have to make sure "manually" that people using i.e. virt-manager[2] don't accidentally fire up VMs managed via e.g. rgmanager. Having cluster wide storage based locks would be an awesome solution. -- Guido [1] using the rather simple lock_resource() and unlock_resource() API: http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/cluster.git?p=cluster.git;a=blob;f=dlm/doc/libdlm.txt [2] i.e. by having virt-manager hooked to all libvirtds in the cluster and allowing to start each uuid only once -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list