Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [et-mgmt-tools] Image Corruption Possible with qemu
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [et-mgmt-tools] Image Corruption Possible with qemu and qemu-kvm
Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:44:16 +0200
on 08/28/2007 04:13:02 AM:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >> In the scenario you mention, libvirt should probably do a
sanity check for
> >> this before letting you start the guest. libvirt already
supports the idea
> >> of 'shared' disk images where two or more guests can be
> optionally configured
> >> to have write access - basically assumes the admin requesting
> >> what they're doing.
> > I think this is the right level myself. Advisory locks
work okay but
> > not all filesystems support them. It's particularly nasty
when you have
> > a clustered filesystem in the host. I think it would do
more harm than
> > good to have a feature like that was supposed to provide a safe-guard
> > but then frequently didn't work.
> There's still the unmanaged use case to worry about. I think
> default to advisory locking, and management tools can do their own
> locking and always override qemu.
> It's too easy to kill an image by starting up another instance right
i agree default should be advisory locking and a switch
to disable it .. would that be hard to implement ?