----- Original Message ----- > On 3/28/11 2:46 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 03/25/2011 10:26 PM, Marcin M. Jessa wrote: > > [...] > > > > One LUN per image allows you to implement failover, LVM doesn't (but > > cluster-LVM does). I recommend using one LUN per image; it's much > > simpler. > > Some people say "Use one LUN, it's easier and use CLVM". Why is it > easier to use CLVM and one LUN per virtual guest? > > > > -- > > Marcin M. Jessa > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
I find it easier because i can do: lvcreate -n vm1 --size 40G iscsi_vg then virt-install or whatever If I were using 1 lun per vm then I would have to provision the lun, make ALL hosts aware of the lun, and finally screw with the multipath configs etc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
