>>> Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> schrieb am 06.02.2013 um 11:54 in >>> Nachricht <20130206105407.gu28...@suse.de>: > On 2013-02-06T10:45:21, Ulrich Windl <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> > 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. > > 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. > > > 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 ;-) Regards, Ulrich _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
