Dave, Yes, NFS is better than SMB. No file name mangling code, no mapping MS Windows permissions to UNIX ones (and then back again in this case), etc., etc.
Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Froberg, David C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LVM usage between lpars Thanks, David. Neglected the reserve/release issue. For the simpler solution you outlined, is NFS a better way to go than SMB [Samba]? Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 2:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] LVM usage between lpars > > > Linux does not do reserve/release, so you need to be very, > very sure that > the devices never come online to more than one LPAR at a time. > > I'd suggest a simpler solution: designate one LPAR as a NFS > file server and > use NFS to mount the volumes on the various other LPARs. It's > a lot simpler > to manage, and it's a ideal use for hipersockets if you have them. > > -- db > > David Boyes > Sine Nomine Associates > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > Froberg, David C > > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:55 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: LVM usage between lpars > > > > > > Folks, > > > > Sanity check. > > > > I've defined two LVM physical volume groups. I plan to share > > these two > > volume groups between three lpars running Linux (SLES 8). > > The physical > > volume groups will provide two pools of space from which > > logical volumes can > > be allocated and mounted to the various Linux images. (Any > > given logical > > volume will be mounted exclusively to only one Linux image.) > > > > This should not be a problem sharing physical volume groups, > > correct? I > > should be able to share the physical volume groups, right? > > Are there any > > obvious problems with this? > > > > Thanks in advance for any input. > > > > Dave > > >
