[Linux-cluster] Fwd: CLVM exclusive mode

[Christine Caulfield]

On 06/08/09 02:52, Jia Ju Zhang wrote:
> Just RFC:
> I noticed that 'vgchange -ay' can convert the lock which locked by 'vgchange -aey'
> from EX to CR. Is that acceptable to change the logic into always allocating a new lock
> rather than converting an existing lock?
> In that case, 'vgchange -ay' won't change the result of 'vgchange -aey'. But if we really
> want to convert the lock, we can firstly invoke 'vgchange -aen' to release the EX lock,
> then invoke the 'vgchange -ay'.
>
> Does this make sense? Or what side effect it may introduce?


I think it makes no sense at all, and have already said so on this list. 
As far as I know there is no bugzilla for this problem and therefore it 
isn't being worked on.

So ... if you care about this ... you know what to do ;-)

Chrissie

>>>> On 8/6/2009 at  9:39 AM, in message<4A7A346B.A94 : 39 : 18251>, Jia Ju Zhang
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 21:29 +0200, brem belguebli wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Same behaviour as the one from Rafael.
>>>
>>> Everything is coherent as long as you use the exclusive flag from the
>>> rogue node, the locking does the job. Deactivating an already opened
>>> VG (mounted lvol) is not possible either. How could this behave in
>>> case one used raw devices instead of FS ?
>>>
>>> But when you come to ignore the exclusive flag on the rogue node
>>> (vgchange -a y vgXX) the locking is completely bypassed. It's
>>> definitely here that the watchdog has to be (within the tools
>>> lvchange, vgchange, or at dlm level).
>> Is there an open bugzilla # for this? Would like to follow this issue.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster