Linux - ServerThis forum is for the discussion of Linux Software used in a server related context.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
My understanding is that the creation of a new LV gives a flexible way to create a block device that is not sitting on top of a filesystem. If you create a disk file, then that has to traverse ext4 (or other) before hitting disk. By using LVM there is no filesystem in the way to put overhead on it. I think it's pretty slick actually, and it's really NOT a lot of extra work at all.
Last edited by acid_kewpie; 02-10-2012 at 02:18 PM.
Thanks acid_kewpie. So you think it's done for performance reasons, then? From the small amount of evidence I've read I was getting the impression that Pacemaker prefers it to be on an LVM for some sort of management reason. Perhaps so it can control the locking of the virtual disk better.
Do I understand correctly that when you have Xen access a LV, the LV doesn't need to have a filesystem? Not even OCFS2? How are concurrent writes prevented? Through Pacemaker?
Well I'm no clustered filesystem expert, someone else, probably you, are a better judge of that side, but as far as the usage of it, you'd have a block device presented which would be your VG, and then further LV's on that would be independent block devices. You would be using those LV's in a way that should be managed to not require concurrent writes. You should have no reason to think a virtual disk is going to be accessed by more than one VM in the first place.