From: David Teigland <email@example.com>
To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Cc: LVM general discussion and development <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
email@example.com, Zdenek Kabelac <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] discussion about activation/auto_activation_volume_list
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:17:25 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201117161725.GB18257@redhat.com> (raw)
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 04:00:10PM +0800, email@example.com wrote:
> Hello LVM-maintainers,
> Currently activation/auto_activation_volume_list is not enable and it does the default behavior:
> pvscan will activate all the devices on booting.
> This rule will trigger a clumsy process in HA (corosync+pacemaker stack) env.
> ## let me show the scenario:
> 2 nodes (A & B) share a disk, and using systemid to manage vg/lv on this shared disk.
> (keep the activation/auto_activation_volume_list default style: comment out this cfg item)
> (below steps come from resource-agent LVM-active script)
> 1. Node A own & active shared vg/lv, node B standby status.
> 2. A reboot, B detect & wait for A rejoined cluster.
> 3. because systemid doesn't be changed, lvm2-pvscan@.service will active the vg/lv on A during booting.
> 4. A finishes reboot, B starts to switch systemid & active shared vg/lv.
> 5. on B, pacemaker detects lvm resource is running on both nodes.
> 6. on B, pacemaker restarts lvm resource and enable it on single node.
> ## rootcause:
> we can see step 3,4,5 is useless if step 3 is non-existent.
> So the rootcause is step <3>: node A auto activate shared vg/lv.
I believe there's an assumption that the system or a user will not
activate LVs that are managed by the cluster, i.e. only LVM-activate will
activate LVs managed by the cluster. Perhaps we could make some attempt
to enforce that, or at least make sure the instructions for LVM-activate
make it clear what to do.
> ## discussion (how to fix):
> Could activation/auto_activation_volume_list support a new symbol/function like "!".
> auto_activation_volume_list = [ "!vg1", "!vg2/lvol1" ]
> the '!' means lvm absolutely doesn't active this vg1 & vg2/lvol1 automatically.
> my question:
> Does it acceptable for LVM2 adding this new function?
auto_activation_volume_list is difficult to use IMO, and I don't think
many people use it. Your suggestion sounds reasonable, but I've wondered
if autoactivation should be a property set on the VG or LV itself (i.e.
in the metadata)? The "activationskip" flag is a possible way to handle
the unwanted autoactivation, and also seems to justify the idea of making
autoactivation a similar flag.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-17 16:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-17 8:00 [linux-lvm] discussion about activation/auto_activation_volume_list heming.zhao
2020-11-17 16:17 ` David Teigland [this message]
2020-11-18 1:28 ` Gang He
2020-11-18 18:23 ` David Teigland
2020-11-19 2:56 ` Gang He
2020-11-19 6:46 ` heming.zhao
2020-11-18 15:38 ` heming.zhao
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).