From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 References: <20180102171034.GC26695@redhat.com> <20180103150713.GA16217@redhat.com> <526766b0-c099-9c7c-9df7-4f48c23d2b24@suse.com> <20180109154239.GA24472@redhat.com> <20180110155659.GB24129@redhat.com> From: Eric Ren Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:32:23 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180110155659.GB24129@redhat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US 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="utf-8"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development , David Teigland 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. Thanks, Eric