- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: shared LVM
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-27-2000 06:06 AM
тАО07-27-2000 06:06 AM
shared LVM
I was surprised to see similiar messages relating to the exact thing I am working on. We too do not use Lock manager and/or service gaurd. Why? Well it is not a failover system. We want our t600 and our n4000 to share disk on a huge array via fiber to alow for fast file movement between the systems.
I did the exact list of steps listed in one of the responses here. (ie, vgexport map, ftp, vgimport etc). the bizzare thing is on system b(with read only access) the FS does not seem to get updated unless I unmount and re-mount. I have try the various sync commands with no luck.
What really confuses me is that it would seem to me that this requirement of sharing disk space via fibre and two machines is not that rare of a request yet HP does not seem to be able to give me any clear direction as to the most reliable(ie right) way of doing it. We basically need the space as a temp dumping ground for HUGE flat files for the other system to pick up. It sounds like we are in for alot of management and very light treading in this type of uncontrolled environment...possibly sys admins nightmare? I would love to hear of any experiences others may have had with this type of situation.
Thanks
Rick Tweedy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-02-2000 05:00 PM
тАО08-02-2000 05:00 PM
Re: shared LVM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-02-2000 05:46 PM
тАО08-02-2000 05:46 PM
Re: shared LVM
If you are using a EMC symmetrix they do have a product that acts almost like a NFS server that sits on the symmetrix box so that you get the speed of fibre although you mount it as if it is a NFS volume. I am pretty sure it supports most Unix flavours and NT.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-02-2000 09:26 PM
тАО08-02-2000 09:26 PM
Re: shared LVM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-03-2000 11:35 PM
тАО08-03-2000 11:35 PM
Re: shared LVM
One day I wanted to run a database on the N-Class, a database which normally runs on the K-Class cluster. Since the N and K machines were all connected physically to the same FiberChannel network and the same disk arrays, I could use that vgexport map, ftp, vgimport, vgchange technique to access the database from an N-Class. I think the difference here is that I accessed the database from only one machine at a time, being very careful not to enable the volume group on more than one machine. Actually I did try enabling the volume group on two machines at the same time just to see if it worked, but I did not do anything with the files under this time.
I suppose you could make a script that automates switching the volume group over to the other machine and vice versa. Then machine A could put its files on the vg, you perform the switch, and machine B could access the files. I think that would be pretty safe. I would make sure both machines had the same OS and filesystem versions first.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-09-2000 11:56 PM
тАО08-09-2000 11:56 PM
Re: shared LVM
Your situation is different to mine in that you seem to have both systems up and running accessing the same LVM. In my case I had one system mounting the data and the second system as standby. Once the main system falls over, the standby will then start up, mount the data drive and then continue working. Since I mounted the drive when I required it I was always able to get the latest info from the disk. In your case, it sounds that data corruption is very possible where both systems mount the drive.