John Madden wrote:
> > Jan Kalcic wrote:> Now I think I can figure out that there is no difference
> > between a domU
> > > based on a file block device on top of a cluster file system, let's
> > > suppose OCFS2, and a domU based on physical block device on top of LVM
> > > (cLVM). In both case, I am eventually able to run the domU on both nodes
> > > having data corruption. Neither OCFS2 nor cLVM with their different lock
> > > managers can provide that mechanism to assure consistency. Right? If
> > > yes, I would say that the best solution should always be using LVM, at
> > > least it provides more features.
> Wrong -- sort of. OCFS2, GFS, Lustre, etc., are CLUSTER filesystems,
> this "clash" you're talking about is actually supposed to be happening.
> And it isn't a "clash," it allows multiple writers. With a cluster
> filesystem, you should, for example, be able to have two domU's on
> different dom0's writing to the same tap:aio file-based filesystem
> residing on OCFS2.
yes, multiple nodes can use the same (cluster) filesystem; but if you store
file-based DomUs on that filesystem, you could start the same DomU on two
nodes, with the same nefarious results. that's the non-protection he's talking
Xen-users mailing list