Good testing, it confirms that some additional barriers are necessary to prevent undesired behaviours.
I'll test by tomorrow the same procedure at VG level.
2009/7/30 Rafael Micó Miranda <rmicmirregs@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi Brem
El jue, 30-07-2009 a las 09:15 +0200, brem belguebli escribió:
> Hi,
>
> does it look like we're hiting some "undesired feature" ;-)
>
> Concerning the 0 nodeid, I think I read that on some Redhat documents
> or bugzilla report, I could find it out.
>
> Brem
>
>
>
>
> --I made some test on my lab environment too, i attach the results in the
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
TXT file.
My conclusions:
1.- lovgols with exclusive flag must be used over clustered volume
groups (obvious and already known)
2.- logvols activated with exclusive flag must be handled EXCLUSIVELY
with the exclusive flag
---> as part of my lvm-cluster.sh resource script, the exclusive flag is
part of the resource definition in cluster.conf so this is correctly
handled
3.- you can activate an already active exclusive logvol on any node if
you dont take into accout, during the activation, the exclusive flag
4.- in use (opened) logvols are protected from deactivation from
secondary nodes, even from main node
5.- after a node failure (hang-up, fencing...) logvol is not open
anymore, so it can be exclusively activated on a new node
All this was tested manually, but this is the expected behaviour on
lvm-cluster.sh resource script.
Link to lvm-cluster.sh resource script:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2009-June/msg00020.html
Cheers,
Rafael
--
Rafael Micó Miranda
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
-- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
