HA-LVM vs CLVM

Matt Iavarone matt.iavarone at gmail.com
Mon Feb 1 13:09:41 UTC 2010


I haven't used ha-lvm, but it doesn't seem to be overkill for your
needs.  It looks tailored to your needs, in fact.  The kb says that
ha-lvm is for failover volumes, those that will only be mounted on one
host (http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/docs/DOC-3068).  So you don't need
to complicate things with a clustered file system.

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:36 AM, urgrue <urgrue at bulbous.org> wrote:
> Hello,
> I need to set up a simple failover scenario. The idea is to have two
> independent RHEL 5 systems on local disks, connected to a shared SAN.
> The application is all on the SAN. Only one node is ever running at a
> time. If the active node fails, the disk needs to be mounted on the
> passive node and the application started.
> Failover doesn't have to be fast or automatic, but it has to be simple
> and reliable.
> Depending on where I look, HA-LVM is sometimes recommended and other
> times it's CLVM. Looking at red hat cluster it seems HA-LVM is a bit
> overkill for my needs.
> Any suggestions or other options?
>
> --
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>




More information about the redhat-list mailing list