On 12.03.2014 11:31, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 08:59:42AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
When I played with virtlockd I was stunned by lacking
documentation. My frustration got bigger when I had to
read the patches to get the correct value to set in
qemu.conf.
Moreover, from pure libvirt-pride I'm changing commented
value from sanlock to lockd. We want to favor our own
implementation after all.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mpriv...@redhat.com>
---
src/qemu/qemu.conf | 10 ++++++----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu.conf b/src/qemu/qemu.conf
index e436084..f0e802f 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu.conf
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu.conf
@@ -402,11 +402,13 @@
#allow_disk_format_probing = 1
-# To enable 'Sanlock' project based locking of the file
-# content (to prevent two VMs writing to the same
-# disk), uncomment this
+# In order to prevent accidentally starting two domains that
+# share one writable disk, libvirt offers two approaches for
+# locking files. The first one is sanlock, the other one,
+# virtlockd, is then our own implementation. Accepted values
+# are "sanlock" and "lockd".
#
-#lock_manager = "sanlock"
+#lock_manager = "lockd"
ACK, I did actually have a patch floating around to turn on virtlockd
by default out of the box. I wonder if we should actually do that
finally.... ?
Sure, why not?
Michal
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
