[linux-lvm] discussion about activation/auto_activation_volume_list

Gang He ghe at suse.com
Thu Nov 19 02:56:15 UTC 2020

Hi David,

On 2020/11/19 2:23, David Teigland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 09:28:21AM +0800, Gang He wrote:
>> I prefer to use a metadata flag for each VG or LV to skip auto-activation.
>> Otherwise, it is not easy for the pacemaker cluster to manager a local
>> VG(e.g. local or systemid type) in a cluster via active-passive mode.
> I created a bug for this:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1899214
Thank for your follow-up.
More comments here,
Should we keep the default behavior like before? e.g. VG/LV should be 
auto-activated by default like before.Otherwise, some users will feel
strange after lvm upgrade.

Second, how to keep the compatibility with the existed VG/LV? since we 
can upgrade lvm2 version, but VG/LV is possible old. I wonder if there 
are some Reserved Bits in lvm meta-data layout to use? if yes, I feel 
this proposal is very perfect.


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

More information about the linux-lvm mailing list