Hi David,
IIRC, you mean we can consider to use cluster raid1 as the underlaying DM
target to support pvmove
used in cluster, since currect pvmove is using mirror target now?
That's what I imagined could be done, but I've not thought about it in
detail. IMO pvmove under a shared LV is too complicated and not worth
doing.
Very true.
By the way, another thing I'd to ask about: Do we really want to drop
the concept of clvm?
From my understanding, lvmlockd is going to replace only "clvmd" daemon,
not clvm in exact. clvm is apparently short for cluster/cluster-aware
LVM, which is intuitive naming. I see clvm as an abstract concept, which
is consisted of two pieces: clvmd and cmirrord. IMHO, I'd like to see
the clvm concept remains, no matter what we deal with the clvmd and
cmirrord. It might be good for user or documentation to digest the
change :)
Thank you for pointing out the artifice in naming here, it has long
irritated me too. There is indeed no such thing as "clvm" or "HA LVM",
and I think we'd be better off to ban these terms completely, at least at
the technical level. (Historically, I suspect sales/marketing had a role
in this mess by wanting to attach a name to something to sell.)
Hha, like cluster MD raid.
If the term "clvm" survives, it will become even worse IMO if we expand it
to cover cases not using "clvmd". To me it's all just "lvm", and I don't
see why we need any other names.
It looks like people need a simple naming to distinguish the usage scenario:
local and cluster.
Thanks,
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/
