From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 09:42:39 -0600 From: David Teigland Message-ID: <20180109154239.GA24472@redhat.com> References: <20180102171034.GC26695@redhat.com> <20180103150713.GA16217@redhat.com> <526766b0-c099-9c7c-9df7-4f48c23d2b24@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <526766b0-c099-9c7c-9df7-4f48c23d2b24@suse.com> Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] lvmlockd: about the limitation on lvresizing the LV active on multiple nodes Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Eric Ren Cc: LVM general discussion and development On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:42:27AM +0800, Eric Ren wrote: > > I've tested your patch and it works very well.=EF=BF=BD Thanks very muc= h. >=20 > Could you please consider to push this patch upstream? OK > Also, Is this the same case for pvmove as lvresize? If so, can we also > work out a similar patch for pvmove? Running pvmove on an LV active on multiple hosts could be allowed with the same kind of patch. However, it would need to use cmirror which we are trying to phase out; the recent cluster raid1 has a more promising future. So I think cmirror should be left in the clvm era and not brought forward. Dave