archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Ren <>
To: LVM general discussion and development <>,
	David Teigland <>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] lvmlockd: about the limitation on lvresizing the LV active on multiple nodes
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:32:23 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi David,

>> IIRC, you mean we can consider to use cluster raid1 as the underlaying DM
>> target to support pvmove
>> used in cluster, since currect pvmove is using mirror target now?
> That's what I imagined could be done, but I've not thought about it in
> detail.  IMO pvmove under a shared LV is too complicated and not worth
> doing.

Very true.

>> By the way, another thing I'd to ask about:   Do we really want to drop
>> the concept of clvm?
>>  From my understanding, lvmlockd is going to replace only "clvmd" daemon,
>> not clvm in exact.  clvm is apparently short for cluster/cluster-aware
>> LVM, which is intuitive naming. I see clvm as an abstract concept, which
>> is consisted of two pieces: clvmd and cmirrord. IMHO, I'd like to see
>> the clvm concept remains, no matter what we deal with the clvmd and
>> cmirrord. It might be good for user or documentation to digest the
>> change :)
> Thank you for pointing out the artifice in naming here, it has long
> irritated me too.  There is indeed no such thing as "clvm" or "HA LVM",
> and I think we'd be better off to ban these terms completely, at least at
> the technical level.  (Historically, I suspect sales/marketing had a role
> in this mess by wanting to attach a name to something to sell.)
Hha, like cluster MD raid.
> If the term "clvm" survives, it will become even worse IMO if we expand it
> to cover cases not using "clvmd".  To me it's all just "lvm", and I don't
> see why we need any other names.
It looks like people need a simple naming to distinguish the usage scenario:
local and cluster.


      reply	other threads:[~2018-01-11  9:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-28 10:42 [linux-lvm] lvmlockd: about the limitation on lvresizing the LV active on multiple nodes Eric Ren
2018-01-02  8:09 ` Eric Ren
2018-01-02 17:10 ` David Teigland
2018-01-03  3:52   ` Eric Ren
2018-01-03 15:07     ` David Teigland
2018-01-04  9:06       ` Eric Ren
2018-01-09  2:42         ` Eric Ren
2018-01-09 15:42           ` David Teigland
2018-01-10  6:55             ` Eric Ren
2018-01-10 15:56               ` David Teigland
2018-01-11  9:32                 ` Eric Ren [this message]

Reply instructions:

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).