Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On 01/06/2011 12:01 PM, Lentes, Bernd wrote: > Digimer wrote: > >>>> >>> >>> I don't want to setup a DRBD as a PV. My idea is to set up >> a DRBD on top of a LV, and to format or not format this LV, >> depending on the decision to install a KVM into a file or a >> plain device. >>> Is this setup ok ? >> >> That would end up being a stacked LVM: >> >> <sda1><sdb1> >> | >> <md0> >> | >> <pv> >> | >> <vg> >> | >> <lv(s)> >> | >> <drbd> >> | >> <pv> >> | >> <vg> >> | >> <lv(s)> >> | >> <fs-or-lv/per VM> >> >> Is this what you had in mind? Or are you thinking of just >> creating raw, standard partitions on the DRBD resource? >> >> If it is this, I was doing something similar some time ago, >> and it worked. However, after discussing this setup with >> Chrissie from RH, she recommended against it when using CLVM >> (which I was for a GFS2 partition for shared storage). >> >> The reasoning was that it could cause problems as the LVM >> would start before the cluster, so the clustered LVM members >> would not be available. >> Unavoidable as I need LVM at node boot-time, long before the >> cluster could start. In the end, I decided to forgo LVM on >> each node and instead only use LVM on the DRBD. >> >> If you are not planning to use LVM on the DRBD resource, but >> instead use raw partitions, then you won't use clvm. As for >> how well it works, I can't say as I've not tried that. I >> can't *think* of any reason why it wouldn't work though. >> > > I don't want to use a DRBD as a PV. > > My setup is like that: > > <hardware raid> > | > <partition> > | > <PV(s)> > | > <VG> > | > <LV(s)> > | > <DRBD> > | > <FS or vm in a plain LV> > > > This should work ? > Which setup did you discuss with RH ? Your old one or mine ? > > > Bernd I discussed the setup I originally showed. Currently I implement LVM only on top of DRBD, but I see no reason why DRBD on top of LVM would be an issue. Of course, LVM can not be clustered in this case, which is fine. In fact, it's a benefit because, last I checked, snapshot'ing of clvm was not possible. -- Digimer E-Mail: digimer at alteeve.com AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org