Am Monday 28 March 2011 schrieb David Martin: > ----- Original Message ----- > > > On 3/28/11 2:46 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > On 03/25/2011 10:26 PM, Marcin M. Jessa wrote: > > [...] > > > > > One LUN per image allows you to implement failover, LVM doesn't (but > > > cluster-LVM does). I recommend using one LUN per image; it's much > > > simpler. > > > > Some people say "Use one LUN, it's easier and use CLVM". Why is it > > easier to use CLVM and one LUN per virtual guest? > > I find it easier because i can do: > lvcreate -n vm1 --size 40G iscsi_vg > then virt-install or whatever > If I were using 1 lun per vm then I would have to provision the lun, make > ALL hosts aware of the lun, and finally screw with the multipath configs > etc. Don't you have basically the same problem when using LVM in one LUN? You still have to make all the hosts aware of the new LV manually. I don't even know LVM even supports this, it wasn't exactly designed for a situation where multiple hosts might simultaneously read and write to a volume group, let alone create and destroy logical volumes while the VG is in use by any number of other hosts... Guido -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
