HA-LVM vs CLVM

[urgrue]

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:50 -0700, "Matt Iavarone"
<matt.iavarone at gmail.com> wrote:
> You don't need ricci or luci for either of these, but they do make it
> easier to build and manage your clusters.  You can use
> system-config-cluster in their place.

I'll take a look at system-config-cluster. The manual just made it sound
like its kinda deprecated in favor of conga. And I'm not so crazy about
conga, it seems I'm able to get strange behaviour out of it even doing
the simplest things in the most pristine setups, which partly explains
my reluctance to use  RHC in all its glory. 

> You can use, I assume, use just ha-lvm and gfs2 without rgmanager or
> cman, but how will you manage the filesystem if the node fails?  Will
> you manually mount it on your backup node?  And there are many options
> for a fence device.  A red hat cluster using clvm and gfs2 is simple
> and easy to manage.

Manual mount/activate on the backup node is fine and in fact required in
my case, for the same reason that it needs to be ext3 - my employer is
ultra-conservative. So I'm not really sure where all this leaves me...

The main fear, and the reason I don't want to just "not mount it" on the
passive node as suggested by others, is that some helpdesk newbie or
careless person goes and starts it on the passive node - very probably
destroying the whole thing. Without any measure in place to at the very
least produce a warning, it's a bit too plausible a scenario.