[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[libvirt] Re: your mail



On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:02:10AM +0200, Guido G?nther wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 09:59:12PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > When you get to that level of cleverness, it seems to me that it is verging 
> > on a complete re-implementation of DLM (distributed lock manager), which 
> > really, AFAIK, needs a proper cluster setup so it can safely fence 
> > mis-behaving nodes, and avoid quorum/split-brain problems.
> I've been toying with the idea of using DLM for libvirt earlier this
> year [1](but infered from other postings on the list that this would be out
> of scope for libvirt - probably should have asked). I looked at vm based
> locks then but having storage based locks is even better.
> 
> Currently you have to make sure "manually" that people using i.e.
> virt-manager[2] don't accidentally fire up VMs managed via e.g.
> rgmanager.
> 
> Having cluster wide storage based locks would be an awesome solution.

If libvirt is deployed in an environment where DLM is present & configured
I've no objection to libvirt making use of it. It should just be a soft
dependancy, where we also need to make a best effort for cases where DLM 
isn't around, even if that only works on a  single host, or with a subset
of storage backends. Give users the flexibility in terms of how they
deploy & integrate libvirt, without imposing too many constraints.

Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]