Re: [Xen-users] XEN+CLVM+GFS

[Schlomo Schapiro <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

why not give every domU a SAN device ? no need for CLVM and GFS in this 
case. You should just think about how to get a consistent naming of the 
SAN devices, e.g. with multipathd oder this scsi persistent names package 
(can't recall the name now, if you need it, I can look it up again).

What is the benefit of GFS ? I did a GFS cluster recently, it is 
definitively NOT trivial to setup and keep running and a single mistake 
will guaranteed CRASH all nodes in your GFS cluster. We tested that rather 
a lot ...

Regards,
Schlomo

PS: I didn't try GFS+XEN ...

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Christopher G. Stach II wrote:

> GÃmes GÃza wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm in the process of planing a SAN based 2 Dom0 redundant solution.
> > Haven't got the equipment yet to do any testing.
> > What I would like to achieve:
> > Have a set of failover DomU-s. Normally Dom0_0 would run DomU_0,
> > DomU_2,... Dom0_1 would run DomU_1, DomU_3,... this domains need access
> > to some data, which could be common for some of them (e.g a webserver
> > and a fileserver). If I keep that data on the SAN on a clvm lv formated
> > as gfs I can access it from one DomU of each Dom0s so two DomUs in total
> > (or will Xen allow me to export a lv as a partition to more than one
> > DomU). This is more a problem in the failover case, when all DomUs are
> > runing on one Dom0.
> > I would like any idea on this,
> > 
> > Thanks in advance.
> > 
> > Geza
> 
> You can configure the devices with "w!" instead of "w" if you want to
> use the same backend in multiple domUs.
> 
> 

-- 
Regards,
Schlomo

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users