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

[Linux-cluster] Info on clvmd with halvm on rhel 6.3 based clusters

I already read these technotes so that it seems my configuration is
coherent with them:


basically I would like to use clvmd with ha-lvm (as recommended) and
set up the cluster service with resources like this:

                        <lvm lv_name="lv_prova" name="lv_prova"
                        <fs device="/dev/VG_PROVA/lv_prova"
force_fsck="0" force_unmount="1" fsid="50013" fstype="ext3
" mountpoint="/PROVA" name="PROVA" options="" self_fence="1"/>

                <service autostart="1" domain="MYDOM" name="MYSERVICE">
                        <lvm ref="lv_prova"/>
                        <fs ref="PROVA"/>

The problem is that if I starts both nodes, when clvmd starts it
activates all the VGs, because of

action "Activating VG(s):" ${lvm_vgchange} -ayl $LVM_VGS || return $?

in init script for clvmd and $LVM_VGS empty

So when the service starts, it fails in lv activation (because already
active) and then the service goes in failed state.

My system is registered with rhsm and bound to 6.3 release.
Current packages

I can solve my problem if I set the clvmd init scripts as in rhel 5.9
where there is a conditional statement.
Diff between original 6.3 clvmd init script and mine is now:

$ diff clvmd clvmd.orig
< # Activate & deactivate clustered LVs
< if [ -n "$CLVMD_ACTIVATE_VOLUMES" ] ; then
< ${lvm_vgscan} > /dev/null 2>&1
> ${lvm_vgscan} > /dev/null 2>&1
< action "Activating VG(s):" ${lvm_vgchange} -ayl $LVM_VGS || return $?
< fi
> action "Activating VG(s):" ${lvm_vgchange} -ayl $LVM_VGS || return $?

Then I set this in  /etc/sysconfig/clvmd

Now all seems ok in start, stop and relocate.

Between technotes of 6.4 I only see this

BZ #729812
Prior to this update, occasional service failures occurred when
starting the clvmd variant of the
HA-LVM service on multiple nodes in a cluster at the same time. The
start of an HA-LVM
resource coincided with another node initializing that same HA-LVM
resource. With this update,
a patch has been introduced to synchronize the initialization of both
resources. As a result,
services no longer fail due to the simultaneous initialization.

but I'm not sure if it is related with my problem as it is private.

Can anyone give his/her opinion?
I'm going to open a case with redhat, but I would like to understand
if it's me missing something trivial.... as I think I would not be the
only one with this kind of configuration....

Thanks in advance,


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