Darryl Dixon - Winterhouse Consulting wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm trying to understand from the sourcecode and from previous discussions > on this list exactly which parts of a 'standard' LVM2 setup are 'unsafe' > in an active/active GFS or OCFS cluster scenario. > > In other words, if I have a single LV, in a single VG, on a single PV, on > a single LUN seen by two hosts via an FC SAN, with GFS or OCFS on top of > it, and both hosts writing data, and no changes to the VG metadata at all, > then where are the points of risk? > >>From what I can understand of the CLVM daemon, it is entirely concerned > with serialising ~metadata~ updates, and writes to the LV are assumed to > be safe as long as they are going through a cluster-aware filesystem on > top? That's correct. If you are never going to change the LVM metadata then you don't need clvm. lvm has no impact on data sharing at all, that's the job of the filesystem (GFS/OCFS etc). -- Patrick -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
