That's what CLVM is for, it propagates the volume changes to every member of the 'cluster'. David Martin ----- Original Message ----- > 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
