15.03.2013 21:38, David Teigland wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 08:46:53PM +0300, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: >> I also thought about dlm one (may be the next step :) ), > > Let me know if you decide to start work on this and I can probably lend > some help. > >> Of course, I fully agree that clvm is just a big hack from the today's >> point of view and something need to change here. > > Since you're open to hacking components together, here's another possible > hack: you could create a gfs2 file system on the shared storage, and use > file locks on gfs2 files. The gfs2 files could be the actual vm images, > but they do not have to be. You could still use lv's for vms directly, > and create empty files on gfs2 representing each lv. The virtlockd file > locks would be acquired on the empty gfs2 files, representing the lvs. > This is another indirect way of using dlm locks, since the gfs2 file locks > are passed to the dlm. That would not solve issue with exclusive LV activation which is required to take snapshots (and just for more safety), but prevents migration. Vladislav _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
