This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-users] Re: cLVM on Debian/Lenny

To: John Madden <jmadden@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: cLVM on Debian/Lenny
From: Jan Kalcic <jandot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:14:38 +0200
Cc: Jan Kalcic <jandot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Olivier Le Cam <Olivier.LeCam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Javier Guerra <javier@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>, xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Thiago Camargo Martins Cordeiro <thiagocmartinsc@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:14:41 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O3JPztDj/7pxD6vbzWASj6Vk4zoAjBSaNHP9BxlJJEQ=; b=dC4lz9cKzBdgJVVjXj95g05oo2FoZfv7GN4cJaMn2tg+c68nuvKaNuhEv764dEshoz DpB5fkO97c/uizw2NI/V3OCq+/R8AQGYMpcpFOktvApYt9I0lnb9jNTjne+hAHAqZPQK +Wq/ev6BrDdze6QD5wiw6LrKV8IMtyXguilko=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=OFC+8Gb3wcRUkiQLdrv17qnVPVrGCB4Xh3JA7rFnPOqPjKJiP89TNqeAjsr0szi8SF VIQTnl+heGzTsMBv0fsA61DM6lZJ/9XX4k/pQYEJu2RqBTBKc2L7QBjFeJRD/PN4Jpse mDpXSm3Hr7EbKw/sIOmHmbZt7afOF343a/g+A=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1240252372.21421.506.camel@quagmire>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <49E61DED.7030607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <90eb1dc70904200828p1b781433k315849f8741c1223@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49ECB001.9060202@xxxxxxxxx> <200904201329.56282.javier@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1240252372.21421.506.camel@quagmire>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20081227)
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.
> John
I think you can do the same with cLVM. You run different domU on
different dom0 writing on the same VG. So you can do load balancing in
the same way.


Xen-users mailing list