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

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM snapshot with Clustered VG [SOLVED]



15.03.2013 15:53, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 15.03.2013 12:37, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>> Dne 15.3.2013 10:29, Vladislav Bogdanov napsal(a):
>>> 15.03.2013 12:00, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>>>> Dne 14.3.2013 22:57, Andreas Pflug napsal(a):
>>>>> On 03/13/13 19:30, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a way to find out if a LV is locked exclusively? lvs
>>>>>>> displaying
>>>>>>> -e-- instead of -a-- would be nice. Seems not even lvdisplay knows
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> exclusive locking.
>>>>>> That would break other tools which rely on their output. F.e. cluster
>>>>>> resource agents of libvirt (yes, it runs lvm tools rather then using
>>>>>> API, which is not yet complete btw). As I also need to obtain this
>>>>>> information, I think about writing simple tool (f.e. clvm_tool) which
>>>>>> would display needed info.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a workaround you can run lvchange -aly without force parameter.
>>>>>> If it
>>>>>> succeeds, the volume is locked in a shared mode, otherwise it is
>>>>>> locked
>>>>>> exclusively.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm, thats one ugly workaround...
>>>>> How about a clvmd option, something like -l to list all locks and exit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think - the extension to  'lvs' command could be relatively simple
>>>> (adding a new column)
>>>
>>> Yes, that's correct.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You may query  for  exclusive/local activation on the node.
>>>> (So you cannot just tell on which other node is the device active,
>>>> but you could print about these states:
>>>>
>>>> active exclusive local
>>>> active exclusive
>>>> active local
>>>> active
>>>
>>> You also may poll all know nodes, but that is a hack too.
>>>
>>> That's why I prefer to have this as a separate tool (with dlm_tool-like
>>> params and output) which lists node IDs and lock mode. Unfortunately do
>>> not have power to write it now.
>>>
>>> Are core LVM devels interested in these two features: lock conversion
>>> and managing remote node locks? If yes, then I can (hopefully) prepare
>>> git patches next week.
>>
>>
>> I'm not quite sure what do you mean by  'managing remote node locks' ?
> 
> Activation/deactivation of LVs on a different corosync cluster node,
> specified by its node name (with pacemaker-like method to determine that
> name).
> Also conversion of locks on that node.
> 
>>
>> Current login behind lvm command is  -
>>
>> You could activate LVs with the above syntax [ael]
>> (there is a tag support - so you could exclusively activate LV on remote
>> node in via some configuration tags)
> 
> Could you please explain this - I do not see anything relevant in man pages.
> 
>>
>> And you want to 'upgrade' remote locks to something else ?
> 
> Yes, shared-to-exclusive end vice verse.
> 
>>
>> What would be the use-case you could not resolve with current command
>> line args?
> 
> I need to convert lock on a remote node during last stage of ver3
> migration in libvirt/qemu. That is a "confirm" stage, which runs on a
> "source" node, during which "old" vm is killed and disk is released.
> So, I first ("begin" stage) convert lock from exclusive to shared on a
> source node, then obtain shared lock on a target node (during "prepare"
> stage, when receiving qemu instance is started), then migrate vm between
> two processes which have LV opened, and then release shared lock on a
> source node ("confirm" stage, after source qemu is killed).
> 
> There is no other events on a destination node in ver3 migration
> protocol, so I'm unable to convert lock to exclusive there after
> migration is finished. So I do that from a source node, after it
> released lock.
> 
>>
>> Is that supported by dlm (since lvm locks are mapped to dlm)?
> Command just sent to a specific clvm instance and performed there.
> 
>> How would you resolve error path fallbacks ?
> 
> Could you please tell  what exactly do you mean?
> If dlm on a remote node is unable to perform requested operation, then
> error is returned to a initiator.
> 
>> Also I believe the clvmd protocol is out of free bits for extension,
>> so how the protocol would look like ?
> It contains 'node' field (I assume it was never actually used before)
> and with some fixes that works.

Fix to myself. clvm client API has that field. And there is no need for
changes in on-wire protocol - corosync module already allows to send a
message to a specific csid (node).

> 
> Vladislav
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
> 


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