On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:26:18AM +0200, Charles Koprowski wrote: > Would you consider the use of lvmlockd + sanlock as "production ready" ? I believe it will work better than clvmd. There is one main thing, unique to using sanlock, that you should verify in your environment. lvmlockd+sanlock is sensitive to spikes in i/o delays. If sanlock sees several consecutive large i/o delays (> 10 sec each), e.g. during heavy use from applications, or during path switching, this can trigger spurious failure detection. (This is analogous to network delays when using network-based solutions.) (We can increase i/o timeouts to compensate if really necessary.) > My goal here is to replace an existing cluster of 5 nodes using clvmd + dlm > + corosync to access a shared VG of 6 TB containing around 300 LVs. > > The current solution is working fine but I find using dlm + corosync "just" > for locking a bit overkill. I agree. Dave _______________________________________________ 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/
