Am Monday 28 March 2011 schrieb David Martin:
> ----- 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?
>
> 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.
Don't you have basically the same problem when using LVM in one LUN? You still
have to make all the hosts aware of the new LV manually. I don't even know LVM
even supports this, it wasn't exactly designed for a situation where multiple
hosts might simultaneously read and write to a volume group, let alone create
and destroy logical volumes while the VG is in use by any number of other
hosts...
Guido
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
