cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

SG without LVM?

 

SG without LVM?

Is it possible to mount "plain" partitions without using volume groups? Must I use volumes?

Krisztiá
10 REPLIES
Simon Hargrave
Honored Contributor

Re: SG without LVM?

You can use fdisk to partition a disk and mkfs the partition directly if you so choose. Just set the partition type to 83 (Linux) instead of 8e (Linux LVM).

Though using LVM does give you a lot more flexibility, I'm not sure why you'd want to use flat partitions?

Re: SG without LVM?

In SG docs I see that packages mount volumes. Though LVM gives me flexibility, it is a potential source of error (adds to the complexity of the system).

Krisztian
Steven E. Protter
Exalted Contributor

Re: SG without LVM?

My experience says you are better off with LVM. SG is designed to use and fail over shared LVM disk in volume groups as part of package failover.

SEP
Steven E Protter
Owner of ISN Corporation
http://isnamerica.com
http://hpuxconsulting.com
Sponsor: http://hpux.ws
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpuxlinux
Founder http://newdatacloud.com
melvyn burnard
Honored Contributor

Re: SG without LVM?

Whether you use file systems or raw disk, Serviceguard is looking to activate one or more Volume Groups for your package if these have been configured.
If you do not configure any Volume Groups then there is nothing to configure in the package to activate volume groups.
I suppose it is possible you could just have "plain" partitions if you wish, but this is unsupported.
My house is the bank's, my money the wife's, But my opinions belong to me, not HP!
Ivajlo Yanakiev
Respected Contributor

Re: SG without LVM?

Yes you can do it

1. You can use all disk as raw device without or with FS
2. You can use part of disk (fdisk) as raw device without or with FS

1 and 2 are not support from HP but work.
Jean-Charles Ripault
Occasional Advisor

Re: SG without LVM?

Hi,

The point is not that LVM MUST be used. The point is that the different members of a cluster MUST IN NO CASE have one filesystem mounted simultaneously by two nodes. So, mounting and unmounting a filesystem is theorically sufficient.

However, activating and de-activating a VG gives it more security and flexibility.

Regards,

Re: SG without LVM?

Does LVM prevent mounting simultaneously the same volume?

Thanks for your replies...
Florian Heigl (new acc)
Honored Contributor

Re: SG without LVM?

In the volume group header there usually is space for a 'vg in use' flag - this alone of course cannot be enough (i.e think of case when the last active member locks up) so You usually use an additional quorum device to ensure the failed node will immediately panic when it's partner took over already.

usually the active node has the vg activated read-write, and you periodically activate it ro on the second partner.
with OCFS You can also use the shared mode, but this filesystem lacks a few features according to the sourceforge page.


You should think of volume groups as something that makes Your work a lot easier, not the other way round - with MC/SG I'd almost always favor using Volume Groups for the shared storage. (Oracle 9/10 with ASM is another topic)
I do not know if Linux' LVM2 implements physical volume groups, too - if it does and You use mirrored storage these make things even easier.

There sure is a notable overhead as long as we're talking about 1 or 2 disks, but as soon as it's a few more, using a LVM will save You a lot of time.
yesterday I stood at the edge. Today I'm one step ahead.
melvyn burnard
Honored Contributor

Re: SG without LVM?

LVM in Linux does NOT have the exclusive mode activation.
It uses the standard vgchange -a y to activate all volume groups.
A request has been submitted ( or so I understand) to who/what/where in Linux world to have this functionality added, but as of right now I do not know whether this will be added, or if so, when
My house is the bank's, my money the wife's, But my opinions belong to me, not HP!

Re: SG without LVM?

We are happy LVM users now, without any problems. I'm trying to minimize the number of modifications in SG scripts (though the number increases...)

Thanks for all the replies!

Krisztian