[linux-lvm] The benefits of lvmlockd over clvmd?

Zdenek Kabelac zkabelac at redhat.com
Wed Jan 10 15:35:56 UTC 2018

Dne 10.1.2018 v 15:42 Eric Ren napsal(a):
> Zdenek,
> Thanks for helping make this more clear to me :)
>> There are couple fuzzy sentences - so lets try to make them more clear.
>> Default mode for 'clvmd' is to 'share' resource everywhere - which clearly 
>> comes from original 'gfs' requirement and 'linear/striped' volume that can 
>> be easily activated on many nodes.
>> However over the time - different use-cases got more priority so basically 
>> every new  dm target (except mirror) does NOT support shared storage (maybe 
>> raid will one day...).   So targets like snapshot, thin, cache, raid  do 
>> require 'so called' exclusive activation.
> Good to know the history about clvmd :)
>> So here comes the difference -  lvmlockd  in its default  goes with 
>> 'exclusive/local' activation and shared (old clvmd default) needs to be 
>> requested.
>> Another difference is -   'clvmd' world is 'automating' activation around 
>> the whole cluster (so from node A it's possible to activate volume on node B 
>> without ANY other command then 'lvchange).
>> With 'lvmlockd' mechanism - this was 'dropped' and it's users responsibility 
>> to initiate i.e. ssh command with activation on another node(s) and resolve 
>> error handling.
>> There are various pros&cons over each solution - both needs setups and while 
>> 'clvmd' world is  'set & done'  lvmlockd world scripting needs to be born in 
>> some way.
> True.
>> Also ATM  'lvmetad' can't be used even with lvmlockd - simply because we are 
>> not (yet) capable to handle 'udev' around the cluster (and it's not clear we 
>> ever will).
> This sentence surprises me much. According to manpage of lvmlockd, it seems 
> clear that lvmlockd can work with lvmetad now.
> IIRC, it's not the first time you mentioned about "cluster udev". It gives me 
> a impression that the currect udev system is not
> 100% reliable for shared disks in cluster, no matter if we use lvmetad or not, 
> right? If so, could you please give an example
> scenario where lvmetad may not work well with lvmlockd?


The world of udevd/systemd is complicated monster - which has no notation for
handling bad/duplicate/.... devices and so on.

Current design of lvmetad is not sufficient to live in ocean of bugs in this 
category - so as said - ATM it's highly recommend to keep lvmetad off in clusters.



More information about the linux-lvm mailing list