On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Adi Kriegisch <adi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Il 26/01/2011 17:07, yue ha scritto:
>> > yes, there has no a good silution.
>> > 1.san+gfs2(ocfs2)
>> > 2.san+clvm
>> > 3san+clvm+gfs2(ocfs2)
>> > 4san+normal filesystem, ext3.....
>> > which has the better performance?
>>
>> 4 if your SAN exports as many luns as your VM disks
>>
>> 2 is better IMHO ...more flexible, not so high overhead
> 100% ACK. The best thing about this: There is no overhead in using CLVM:
> The cluster locking is only required when modifying LVs. For the rest of
> the time performance is (most probably) slightly better than when using
> LUNs directly because LVM will take care of readahead dynamically.
>
> -- Adi
>
> _______________________________________________
How would you do this?
Export LUN1 from SAN1 & LUN1 from SAN2 to the same client PC, and then
setup cLVM on top of the 2 LUN's?
What do you then do if you want redundancy, between 2 client PC's, i.e
similar to RAID1 ?
-- 
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users