Hi David,
On 01/04/2018 05:06 PM, Eric Ren wrote:
David,
On 01/03/2018 11:07 PM, David Teigland wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 11:52:34AM +0800, Eric Ren wrote:
1. one one node: lvextend --lockopt skip -L+1G VG/LV
That option doesn't exist, but illustrates the point that some
new
option could be used to skip the incompatible LV locking in
lvmlockd.
Hmm, is it safe to just skip the locking while the LV is active on
other
node?
Is there somewhere in the code to avoid concurrent lvm command to
execute
at the same time?
The VG lock is still used to protect the VG metadata change. The LV lock
doesn't protect anything per se, it just represents that lvchange has
activated the LV on this host. (The LV lock does not represent the
suspended/resumed state of the dm device either, as you suggested
above.)
I see, thanks for you explanation!
I'll send a simple patch to skip the lv lock to try this.
I've tested your patch and it works very well. Thanks very much.
Could you please consider to push this patch upstream? Also, Is this the
same case
for pvmove as lvresize? If so, can we also work out a similar patch for
pvmove?
Regards,
Eric
_______________________________________________
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/
