On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 08:36:50AM -0800, Adam Tilghman wrote:
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 11:02:21AM -0400, David Teigland wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 10:55:59AM +0200, NEVEU Stephane wrote:
> > In my /etc/libvirt/qemu-sanlock.conf
> The better method of libvirt locking is virtlockd. I've never seen this
> old libvirt+sanlock combination work well for anyone.
I'm considering using the explicit lease variant of libvirt+sanlock (ie,
lease config defined in the domain XML), with the leases maintained on a
shared block device as I wish to avoid the need for a shared filesystem.
I'm under the impression this is the same configuration RHEV/oVirt uses;
would you have any reservations using this locking style outside of those settings?
Hi, I'm not too familiar with the details of libvirt/ovirt, so take this
for what it's worth...
The design exists to use sanlock leases for vm's through libvirt, and some
of the parts have been written (in libvirt and sanlock), but ovirt/vdsm
does not yet use those capabilities. (ovirt does use sanlock for
protecting the spm now.)
Also, there is more to do than specifying the leases in the configuration.
The sanlock lockspaces need to created and managed (vdsm would do this).
I would have reservations about manually setting up and administering a
cluster directly at the libvirt/sanlock level if you're looking for
something sustainable and supportable.