> Thanks again. I was trying to avoid the mount/unmount complexity and  
> use SAN space more efficiently by simply keeping all the xenU domains  
> on the shared file system, but it looks as though that won't work  
> quite like I had hoped. I'm not looking for HA per se (although this  
> is important,) more for flexibility when load balancing the VMs  
> running on all the blades, and safer live migrations from blade to  
> blade. I'm a little nervous about having a LUN up on two boxes at the  
> same time, as I've got some experience with killing file systems this  
> way (in the test lab, anyway.)
Well GFS really should work, I'm just suggesting that you don't need it. And 
the LUN's being "available" (as in, equivalent to the scsi cable being 
plugged into the clustered shared scsi device) on multiple hosts is how HA on 
a SAN is generally done. You really don't have to worry about it as long as 
you configure the failback client to not write to it until it's really 
time. :)
John
-- 
John Madden
Sr. UNIX Systems Engineer
Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
jmadden@xxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users