[Linux-cluster] Fwd: CLVM exclusive mode

[Pasi Kärkkäinen]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 04:10:01PM +0200, brem belguebli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks a lot.
> 
> I'll try it, but would be enjoyed if RH could implement it.
> 

Did you already open bugzilla entry about it? 

Quote from this same thread:

"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"

-- Pasi

> Regards
> 
> 
> 2009/8/17, Xinwei Hu <hxinwei at gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Attached a very naive try to solve the issue you have.
> >
> > Would you give it a test ?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > 2009/8/16 brem belguebli <brem.belguebli at gmail.com>:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I don't think adding more security can be considered as pointless,
> > > especially when this has no impact on performance or behaviour.
> > > The question is, what's the point in  allowing the clustered active
> > > exclusive lock to be bypassed ?
> > >
> > > In comparison to other volume management solutions (on various unices)
> > where
> > > these barriers are already implemented, the lack of them on Linux can  be
> > > seen as a weakness.
> > > Regards
> > >
> > >
> > > 2009/8/6, Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie at redhat.com>:
> > >>
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Linux-cluster mailing list
> > >> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> > >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Linux-cluster mailing list
> > > Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Linux-cluster mailing list
> > Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
> >
> >

> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster