Re: [Xen-users] Re: DomU guest - resize disk on LVM?

[Thomas Harold <tgh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

HAWKER, Dan wrote:
> Are all these layers *really* required??? Seems messy to have LVM ontop of
> LVM (even if the OS doesn't realise this is the case).
> ATM for my Xen boxes I use LVM in the Dom0 and use this to create my DomU
> drives. For instance I have Dom0 and DomU VGs in my Dom0. I then create the
> usual set of LVs for each Dom0/U and make them accessible to the DomU in the
> usual way (as sda1,sda2, etc, etc).
>
> VG-Dom0
>  - LVRoot
>  - LVSwap
>  - LVwhatever
> VG-DomU
>  - LVDomU1-root
>  - LVDomU1-swap
>  - LVDomU1-whatever
>  - LVDomU2-root
>  - LVDomU2-swap
>  - LVDomU2-whatever
That's how we've settled on doing things as well.  Our hypervisor 
servers typically only have a single volume group (called 'vg' for 
simplicity) with LV names like:
domu-svn
domu-svnsvn
domu-svnbkp
domu-jabber
domu-fw1

Where domu-svn, domu-svnsvn, domu-svnbkp map to sda1, sda2, sda3 inside 
the subversion DomU.  If the DomU needs a swap area or other scratch 
space, we export those as sdbN inside the DomU.
One nice thing about doing everything in Dom0 is that you can do LVM 
snapshots and quick images of entire systems.  Or resizing the file 
system, being able to take a DomU down and check the file systems or 
even mount the DomU's troubled file systems in Dom0 and do maintenance.
There could be less wasted space by managing everything in Dom0.

I would imagine it also keeps LVM from being confused when it encounters 
an LVM inside another LVM.  Without having to resort to LVM filtering 
tricks.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users