Re: discussion about activation/auto_activation_volume_list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi David,

On 2020/11/19 2:23, David Teigland wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 09:28:21AM +0800, Gang He wrote:
I prefer to use a metadata flag for each VG or LV to skip auto-activation.
Otherwise, it is not easy for the pacemaker cluster to manager a local
VG(e.g. local or systemid type) in a cluster via active-passive mode.

I created a bug for this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1899214
Thank for your follow-up.
More comments here,
Should we keep the default behavior like before? e.g. VG/LV should be auto-activated by default like before.Otherwise, some users will feel
strange after lvm upgrade.

Second, how to keep the compatibility with the existed VG/LV? since we can upgrade lvm2 version, but VG/LV is possible old. I wonder if there are some Reserved Bits in lvm meta-data layout to use? if yes, I feel this proposal is very perfect.

Thanks
Gang


Dave

_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/


_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/




[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Users]     [Kernel Development]     [Linux Clusters]     [Device Mapper]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux