On 2013-02-06T12:22:37, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > colocation col_OCFS_cVG inf: _rsc_set_ ( cln_CFS ) cln_cLVM
> > > order ord_cVG_CFS inf: cln_cLVM ( cln_CFS )
> >
> > Why not just:
> >
> > colocation col_OCFS_cVG inf: cln_CFS cln_cLVM
> > order ord_cVG_CFS inf: cln_cLVM cln_CFS
>
> The reason was "linear extensibility": If you have more than one CFS on
> different LVs of the VG.
I'm not sure I follow what you mean by that?
> > That ought to work. Probably clones and resource sets have a problem
> > here?
> From what I had read, the parenthesis don't make the difference.
I have colocated clones and I've not seen that message, so my guess was
that this culd fix it.
> > > DLM (Distributed Lock Manager)
> > > O2CB (OCFS2), needs DLM
> > > cLVM needs DLM
> > > LVM-LV needs cLVM
> > > OCFS2-filesystem needs both, O2CB and LVM-LV
> > >
> > > The pattern should be flexible enough to allow both, OFCS on top of an
> > > LV,
> > as well as OCFS directly on a shared disk. And the pattern should only
> > define
> > contraints that are necessary, i.e. do not put everything in a group and
> > clone that group.
> >
> > The latter is the easiest solution that just works; where's the problem
> > with that? Too simple? ;-)
>
> Well, it's incomplete, as you can see simply by counting the number of
> resources involved ;-)
I still don't follow. You add all the file systems to the cloned group.
Problem solved?
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
