Is the goal to have the MD device be directly accessible from all nodes? This strategy seems flawed in that it speaks to updating MD superblocks then in-memory Linux data structures across a cluster. The reality is if we're talking about shared storage the MD management only needs to happen in one node. Others can weigh in on this but the current MD really doesn't want to be cluster-aware. IMHO, this cluster awareness really doesn't belong in MD/mdadm. A high-level cluster management tool should be doing this MD ownership/coordination work. The MD ownership can be transferred accordingly if/when the current owner fails, etc. But this implies that the MD is only ever active on one node at any given point in time. Mike On 6/13/07, Xinwei Hu <hxinwei@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all, Steven Dake proposed a solution* to make MD layer and tools to be cluster aware in early 2003. But it seems that no progressing is made since then. I'd like to pick this one up again. :) So far as I understand, Steven's proposal still applies to currently MD implementation mostly, except we have bitmap now. And bitmap can be workarounded via set_bitmap_file. The problem is that it seems we need a kernel<->userspace interface to sync the mddev struct across all nodes, but I don't find out how. I'm new to the MD driver, so correct me if I'm wrong. And you suggestions are really appreciated. Thanks. * http://osdir.com/ml/raid/2003-01/msg00013.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
