>>> Jorge Fábregas <[email protected]> schrieb am 29.08.2015 um 20:27 in Nachricht <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > For an active/passive cluster, using a non-cluster filesystem like ext3 > over LVM (using cLVM & DLM), would you:
Actually when using ext3 I wouldn't use cLVM, so this variant wouldn't exist then. I see the danger that someone might mount the ext3-LV in a second node by mistake. Sometimes this will corrupt the filesystem in a way that fsck cannot repair, and maybe you'll discover that days after it happened... > > - include the VG activation in the same cloned group that hosts cLVM & > DLM? (top of screenshot) so that in both nodes the VG is activated (even > though this is not a cluster-filesystem so there's no need to have the > VG activated on both sides simultaneously)? > > or > > - do you create a separate group with the VG activation (LVM resource) > and tie it with the Filesystem resource? (bottom of screenshot). This > makes more sense to me since the VG only needs to be activated where the > filesystem is going to be mounted. > > Here's my screenshot: > > http://oi60.tinypic.com/10pn9n6.jpg > > I belive this last one is THE way to go for such setup (active/passive) > but I'm wondering why I have seen examples online with the first case. > Maybe I'm missing something. > > Thanks! > Jorge > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list: [email protected] > http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: [email protected] http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
