Re: Grub2, /boot, and lvm
On 12/08/2009 07:45 AM, Tom H wrote: hat you had asked for this info. >>> This is from the Grub 2 wiki: >>> http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID > >> Thank you Tom, its much appreciated, but you forgot that you have >> already posted that. :) > > You're welcome. By the end of this week I will have done four weeks' > worth of shifts in two weeks - and I cannot remember posting this > before (!). I hope that I am not making similar mistakes at work... Maybe its in part coz I posted it perhaps (as well possibly) .. so you may not be misremembering! -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Grub2, /boot, and lvm
2009/12/8 Tom H : >>>> From Suvayu Ali (in the "Getting rid of /boot" thread) >>>> Could you please point me to the documentation for this? I would >>>> really like to read up more and understand what limitations/advantages >>>> I might have as I have been waiting for this to be included since F10. > >>> Sorry Suvayu. Just remembered that you had asked for this info. >>> This is from the Grub 2 wiki: >>> http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID > >> Thank you Tom, its much appreciated, but you forgot that you have >> already posted that. :) > > You're welcome. By the end of this week I will have done four weeks' > worth of shifts in two weeks - and I cannot remember posting this > before (!). I hope that I am not making similar mistakes at work... > We all have our days :) >> I went through it, and was trying to find whether the grub in Fedora >> is capable of that. >> $ grub --version >> grub (GNU GRUB 0.97) >> Even in the F12 repos, I saw the grub version is 0.97. Whereas the >> link says Grub needs to be 1.95 or higher to boot from a /boot on an >> lvm. Does that mean Fedora is yet to include that capability? > > The package is called grub2. :) > > And the latest release 1.97xxx. > That explains it! I was looking in the Fedora repository, and grub2 is in the Everything repo. -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Grub2, /boot, and lvm
>>> From Suvayu Ali (in the "Getting rid of /boot" thread) >>> Could you please point me to the documentation for this? I would >>> really like to read up more and understand what limitations/advantages >>> I might have as I have been waiting for this to be included since F10. >> Sorry Suvayu. Just remembered that you had asked for this info. >> This is from the Grub 2 wiki: >> http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID > Thank you Tom, its much appreciated, but you forgot that you have > already posted that. :) You're welcome. By the end of this week I will have done four weeks' worth of shifts in two weeks - and I cannot remember posting this before (!). I hope that I am not making similar mistakes at work... > I went through it, and was trying to find whether the grub in Fedora > is capable of that. > $ grub --version > grub (GNU GRUB 0.97) > Even in the F12 repos, I saw the grub version is 0.97. Whereas the > link says Grub needs to be 1.95 or higher to boot from a /boot on an > lvm. Does that mean Fedora is yet to include that capability? The package is called grub2. :) And the latest release 1.97xxx. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Grub2, /boot, and lvm
Hi Tom, 2009/12/7 Tom H > > >From Suvayu Ali (in the "Getting rid of /boot" thread) > > Could you please point me to the documentation for this? I would > > really like to read up more and understand what limitations/advantages > > I might have as I have been waiting for this to be included since F10. > > Sorry Suvayu. Just remembered that you had asked for this info. > > This is from the Grub 2 wiki: > http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID > Thank you Tom, its much appreciated, but you forgot that you have already posted that. :) I went through it, and was trying to find whether the grub in Fedora is capable of that. $ grub --version grub (GNU GRUB 0.97) Even in the F12 repos, I saw the grub version is 0.97. Whereas the link says Grub needs to be 1.95 or higher to boot from a /boot on an lvm. Does that mean Fedora is yet to include that capability? This thread has been very enlightening so far. :) -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Grub2, /boot, and lvm
>From Suvayu Ali (in the "Getting rid of /boot" thread) > Could you please point me to the documentation for this? I would > really like to read up more and understand what limitations/advantages > I might have as I have been waiting for this to be included since F10. Sorry Suvayu. Just remembered that you had asked for this info. This is from the Grub 2 wiki: http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Upgrade from F11 to F12 - problem with LVM and raid
Third update: I made it work. I had some space on the drive so I created new partition for / where I installed F12. Raid/LVM2 support in F12 upgrade DVD is not completely broken but it displays errors and warning when it tries to mount/inspect my raid1 md partitions (I have lvm2 on top of them). Anaconda stops and restarts md arrays several times. I have about 10 of them and whole this procedure takes about 15 minutes... Once F12 was installed the boot process was smooth and no errors or new warnings were displayed. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Upgrade from F11 to F12 - problem with LVM and raid
Update - I tried to boot upgrade DVD for F10 which I had by hand and it very quickly recognized all my raid/lvm arrays and offered me to install the system to them. *So it seems that Raid/LVM2 support in F12 upgrade DVD is broken!!!* I'm going to reinstall F11. Then I my try to upgrade via yum again... -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Upgrade from F11 to F12 - problem with LVM and raid
Hi guys, I tried to upgrade F11 with soft raid F12. So far I used yum to upgrade Fedora 1 up to F11. My yum update went wrong and my server wes forcefully rebooted in the middle so none kernel from F11 works anymore. After I booted F12 DVD - if I select "Install or Upgrade" and "Replace existing Linux System" the probem is that my original raid raids are not mounted. I can see: <6>md6: radi1: raid set md0 active with 2 out of 2 mirrors <6>md0: detected capacity change from 0 to <3>"Buffer I/O error on device md0, logical block 0" ... <3>"Buffer I/O error on device md0, logical block 9" <6>md0: detected capacity change from to 0 ... <6>md: md0 is stopped This whole raid process repeats iteslf several times and it takes about 10-15 minutes. However with "Replace existing Linux System" option, raid arrays are not mounted successfuly and I cannot install F12 over F11. But when I select rescue option from F12 DVD, the same errors are displayed but my all old arrays are eventually mounted, so I can see all the files. Also once arrays are mounted they appear working and healthy. Do you please have any hint how can I refresh or repair my md arrayrs so it does not take ages before these are mounted and at the first place they are mounted every time? Is there any safe raid command I can do in rescue mode so this is achieved and I won't loss my data? Do you think that my raid arrays created in times of Fefdora 1 can cause this problem? This situation is very painful as I killed my day today trying to fix it without luck :( Thank you very much gyus, Jaiv PS: During my initial tries I reinstalled swap (as it was encrypted on the old system and Anaconda always asked for pw which I do not have) and I did it with the command: mkswap -f -L swap /dev/VolGrolup00/LogVol00 Do you think I could have damaged my raid arrays by using "-f" option? -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: loopback mounting a LVM in two disk image files
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 03:58:31PM +1300, Clint Dilks wrote: > fred smith wrote: > >I've got two files that are disk images of /dev/sda and /dev/sdb, > >containing > >my F11 installation from my eeepc 901. I'd like to occasioinally be able to > >access files therein without having to restore them to the "disks" in the > >901 (thereby blowing away my F12 installation, btw.) > > > >I created them with f11's Anaconda, using its default settings to partition > >the two drives into one big LVM volume, with separate /boot and swap. > > > >Can someone point me in the right direction to find out how to access the > >partition hidden somewhere within that 20 gigs of bits? > > > >recipes welcome. > > > >Thanks! > > > > > Hi Fred, > > I suggest you do some research into losetup > > the example at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_device may be a good > place to start and then you would need to do a vgscan to mount your LVM > partions. Thanks, I'll check that out. -- Fred Smith -- fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us - The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good. - Proverbs 15:3 (niv) - -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: loopback mounting a LVM in two disk image files
fred smith wrote: I've got two files that are disk images of /dev/sda and /dev/sdb, containing my F11 installation from my eeepc 901. I'd like to occasioinally be able to access files therein without having to restore them to the "disks" in the 901 (thereby blowing away my F12 installation, btw.) I created them with f11's Anaconda, using its default settings to partition the two drives into one big LVM volume, with separate /boot and swap. Can someone point me in the right direction to find out how to access the partition hidden somewhere within that 20 gigs of bits? recipes welcome. Thanks! Hi Fred, I suggest you do some research into losetup the example at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_device may be a good place to start and then you would need to do a vgscan to mount your LVM partions. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: loopback mounting a LVM in two disk image files
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:39 AM, fred smith wrote: > I've got two files that are disk images of /dev/sda and /dev/sdb, containing > my F11 installation from my eeepc 901. I'd like to occasioinally be able to > access files therein without having to restore them to the "disks" in the > 901 (thereby blowing away my F12 installation, btw.) > > I created them with f11's Anaconda, using its default settings to partition > the two drives into one big LVM volume, with separate /boot and swap. > > Can someone point me in the right direction to find out how to access the > partition hidden somewhere within that 20 gigs of bits? > > recipes welcome. > > Thanks! > > -- > --- > . Fred Smith / > ( /__ ,__. __ __ / __ : / > / / / /__) / / /__) .+' Home: fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us > / / (__ (___ (__(_ (___ / :__ 781-438-5471 > Jude 1:24,25 > - > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@redhat.com > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines > You might want to use kpartx. -- Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) Dip(Mechatronics) BEng(Hons)(Mechanical Engineering) Alma Maters: (1) Singapore Polytechnic (2) National University of Singapore My Primary Blog: http://teo-en-ming-aka-zhang-enming.blogspot.com My Secondary Blog: http://enmingteo.wordpress.com My Youtube videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/enmingteo Email: space.time.unive...@gmail.com Mobile Phone (Starhub Prepaid): +65-8369-2618 Street: Bedok Reservoir Road Country: Singapore -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
loopback mounting a LVM in two disk image files
I've got two files that are disk images of /dev/sda and /dev/sdb, containing my F11 installation from my eeepc 901. I'd like to occasioinally be able to access files therein without having to restore them to the "disks" in the 901 (thereby blowing away my F12 installation, btw.) I created them with f11's Anaconda, using its default settings to partition the two drives into one big LVM volume, with separate /boot and swap. Can someone point me in the right direction to find out how to access the partition hidden somewhere within that 20 gigs of bits? recipes welcome. Thanks! -- --- .Fred Smith / ( /__ ,__. __ __ / __ : / // / /__) / / /__) .+' Home: fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us // (__ (___ (__(_ (___ / :__ 781-438-5471 Jude 1:24,25 - -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
F11 non-LVM /boot partition not accessible
I have a system updated from F9 -> F10 -> F11 that no longer can get access to the /boot partition (the F11 update was the trigger for this). After the update, on the reboot, grub saw the /boot partition just fine and booted the kernel successfully, then when the kernel went to check and mount the filesystem, it couldn't find it. I commented out the filesystem in /etc/fstab and things came up OK, but of course I will have difficulty applying any new kernel images in the future.. The system has two mirrored 320GB SATA drives. They are partitioned identically, with a ~200MB partition 1 for /boot and the rest of the disk allocated for LVM: Disk /dev/sda: 320.0 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x07b4 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 25 200781 83 Linux /dev/sda2 26 38913 312367860 8e Linux LVM fdisk is happy with the partition table on both disks. During boot, the kernel seems to recognize both partitions: scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access ATA WDC WD3200YS-01P 21.0 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0 sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 625142448 512-byte hardware sectors: (320 GB/298 GiB) sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA sda: sda1 sda2 sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk ata2: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300) ata2.00: ATA-7: WDC WD3200YS-01PGB0, 21.00M21, max UDMA/133 ata2.00: 625142448 sectors, multi 0: LBA48 NCQ (depth 1) ata2.00: configured for UDMA/133 scsi 1:0:0:0: Direct-Access ATA WDC WD3200YS-01P 21.0 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] 625142448 512-byte hardware sectors: (320 GB/298 GiB) sd 1:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0 sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA sdb: sdb1 sdb2 By the time user space gets started, however, the kernel and/or udev have created only /dev/sda, /dev/sdb, and /dev/sdb2. If I manually create a /dev/sda1 or /dev/sdb1, they cannot access the partitions on the disk and return an immediate error ENODEV. I have other systems running just fine that have followed the same update path (or even longer), but this is the only system I have that has mirrored disks or LVM. Has there been any change that might have caused this? I am a little suspicous that something is aware of the disk mirroring, since there is a sdb2 device file but no sda2 file. The LVM table is based on /dev/sdb2, not on /dev/sdb itself. Is this the normal way, or is there some way that this could be causing the trouble? Any suggestions of what to look at, or ideas what might be the culprit here? Thanks in advance! Marcus Hall mar...@tuells.org -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Advice on what dmsetup/fdisk/lvm does!
On 13/10/09 18:33, Dan Track wrote: sda and sdb are the same, as there is only one disk but two separate paths to it, so it shows up twice under different device mappings. My question now is after restarting mutlipathd, what is the next step? Do I need to use dmsetup, searching the web I still can't understand why I need it. I'm looking to create a logical volume on this disk. Once multipath is working should I only see one entry in /proc/partitions, instead of /dev/sda and /dev/sdb? Posting your configuration file will probably help, but you don't need to touch /dev/sda or /dev/sdb. There should be an entry under /dev/mapper (eg /dev/mapper/SANVOL) or whatever you called it, which is the device you use to create the filesystems, logical volumes, partitions etc. You'll still see /dev/sda and /dev/sdb in /proc/partitions though. It's also recommended you exclude lvm (/etc/lvm/lvm.conf) from looking at /dev/sda and /dev/sdb, otherwise there's the potential to confuse it. -- Ian Chapman. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
[Solved]Re: PV and LVM resize ext4
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 15:45 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > Ambrogio wrote: > > >> e2fsck -f /dev/vg_taitsvolume/lv_root > >> resize2fs -p /dev/vg_taitsvolume/lv_root 30G > >> lvreduce --size 30G vg_taitsvolume/lv_root --test > >> lvreduce --size 30G vg_taitsvolume/lv_root > > i suggest to reduce the LV to a little more than 30G, or you have to > > calculate at block level the right dimension. Maybe 31GB is a good > > choise to eliminate the risks of lost the last blocks in the filesystem. > > Well said. > Never trust the definition of GB, the padding and rounding > rules etc. > > Resize the filesystem to 20GB, then resize the volume to 30GB, > then resize the fileystem again with no size specification: > it will fill the available space (30GB). > > > But... you can use a more simple algoritm > > > > make the LV on the new disks > > resize the old fs to feet the size of the new lv (a little less) > > dd the filesystem to the new LV > > resize the new fs as to feet the entire LV > > Agreed on this one too. > > -- >Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it > Alright, so I basically took the same steps I outlined in my OP. This was because I wanted to keep the same names for the VG and LVs without having to change too much of the other configurations. If anyone would like, I can send them the exact steps I took, but they were almost exactly as I had laid out in the OP. Thanks for the suggestions and advice, Tait signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: PV and LVM resize ext4
Ambrogio wrote: >> e2fsck -f /dev/vg_taitsvolume/lv_root >> resize2fs -p /dev/vg_taitsvolume/lv_root 30G >> lvreduce --size 30G vg_taitsvolume/lv_root --test >> lvreduce --size 30G vg_taitsvolume/lv_root > i suggest to reduce the LV to a little more than 30G, or you have to > calculate at block level the right dimension. Maybe 31GB is a good > choise to eliminate the risks of lost the last blocks in the filesystem. Well said. Never trust the definition of GB, the padding and rounding rules etc. Resize the filesystem to 20GB, then resize the volume to 30GB, then resize the fileystem again with no size specification: it will fill the available space (30GB). > But... you can use a more simple algoritm > > make the LV on the new disks > resize the old fs to feet the size of the new lv (a little less) > dd the filesystem to the new LV > resize the new fs as to feet the entire LV Agreed on this one too. -- Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: PV and LVM resize ext4
Il giorno ven, 16/10/2009 alle 15.37 -0400, Tait Clarridge ha scritto: > Hello, > > Boot into a LiveCD > > e2fsck -f /dev/vg_taitsvolume/lv_root > resize2fs -p /dev/vg_taitsvolume/lv_root 30G > lvreduce --size 30G vg_taitsvolume/lv_root --test > lvreduce --size 30G vg_taitsvolume/lv_root i suggest to reduce the LV to a little more than 30G, or you have to calculate at block level the right dimension. Maybe 31GB is a good choise to eliminate the risks of lost the last blocks in the filesystem. > pvresize --setphysicalvolumesize 40G /dev/sda2 > > (I chose 40GB to keep it away from the maximum of 60GB so there are no > issues with block sizes/sectors) > > use gparted to resize /dev/sda2 to 40G the same as before > dd to smaller drive > > use gparted to resize /dev/sda2 to maximum allowed > > pvresize /dev/sda2 > lvextend /dev/vg_hornet/lv_root /dev/sda2 > e2fsck -f /dev/vg_hornet/lv_root > resize2fs /dev/vg_hornet/lv_root But... you can use a more simple algoritm make the LV on the new disks resize the old fs to feet the size of the new lv (a little less) dd the filesystem to the new LV resize the new fs as to feet the entire LV Bye Ambrogio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: PV and LVM resize ext4
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Tait Clarridge wrote: > Hello, > > I am about to buy a 60GB SSD to replace my netbook's current 160GB drive > and wanted to get some feedback whether the process I am thinking of > taking to resize the drives will work properly. > > So here goes: > My volume group in this example is called: vg_taitsvolume > The logical volume (root) being resized is: lv_root > The physical volume is: /dev/sda2 > > Current Partition Sizes: > > /boot - 200M - formatted ext3 > swap - 4GB - swap > / - 145GB - formatted ext4 > > There is only ~8GB in use on the / fs > > Boot into a LiveCD > > e2fsck -f /dev/vg_taitsvolume/lv_root > resize2fs -p /dev/vg_taitsvolume/lv_root 30G > lvreduce --size 30G vg_taitsvolume/lv_root --test > lvreduce --size 30G vg_taitsvolume/lv_root > > pvresize --setphysicalvolumesize 40G /dev/sda2 Everything looks good to this point as far as I can tell (from memory) > > (I chose 40GB to keep it away from the maximum of 60GB so there are no > issues with block sizes/sectors) > > use gparted to resize /dev/sda2 to 40G > > dd to smaller drive These steps should not be necessary as part of the advantage if LVM[1] is moving the LV's around. > > use gparted to resize /dev/sda2 to maximum allowed > > pvresize /dev/sda2 > lvextend /dev/vg_hornet/lv_root /dev/sda2 > e2fsck -f /dev/vg_hornet/lv_root > resize2fs /dev/vg_hornet/lv_root > > > So, will this work? Are there any steps I can take out? I haven't really > played with LVM before (at all) so I thought I would come up with my own > steps through the man pages and put it to the list to see if anyone has > either completed what I need to do, or has any tips. > > I will be backing up the important files so if something goes wrong it > is not a problem, but kind of an annoyance. > > Thanks, > Tait Richard [1] http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/recipemovevgtonewsys.html -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: PV and LVM resize ext4
I think should work . make a backup first and go ahead. let us know if worked On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Tait Clarridge wrote: > Hello, > > I am about to buy a 60GB SSD to replace my netbook's current 160GB drive > and wanted to get some feedback whether the process I am thinking of > taking to resize the drives will work properly. > > So here goes: > My volume group in this example is called: vg_taitsvolume > The logical volume (root) being resized is: lv_root > The physical volume is: /dev/sda2 > > Current Partition Sizes: > > /boot - 200M - formatted ext3 > swap - 4GB - swap > / - 145GB - formatted ext4 > > There is only ~8GB in use on the / fs > > Boot into a LiveCD > > e2fsck -f /dev/vg_taitsvolume/lv_root > resize2fs -p /dev/vg_taitsvolume/lv_root 30G > lvreduce --size 30G vg_taitsvolume/lv_root --test > lvreduce --size 30G vg_taitsvolume/lv_root > > pvresize --setphysicalvolumesize 40G /dev/sda2 > > (I chose 40GB to keep it away from the maximum of 60GB so there are no > issues with block sizes/sectors) > > use gparted to resize /dev/sda2 to 40G > > dd to smaller drive > > use gparted to resize /dev/sda2 to maximum allowed > > pvresize /dev/sda2 > lvextend /dev/vg_hornet/lv_root /dev/sda2 > e2fsck -f /dev/vg_hornet/lv_root > resize2fs /dev/vg_hornet/lv_root > > > So, will this work? Are there any steps I can take out? I haven't really > played with LVM before (at all) so I thought I would come up with my own > steps through the man pages and put it to the list to see if anyone has > either completed what I need to do, or has any tips. > > I will be backing up the important files so if something goes wrong it > is not a problem, but kind of an annoyance. > > Thanks, > Tait > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@redhat.com > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines > -- Itamar Reis Peixoto e-mail/msn: ita...@ispbrasil.com.br sip: ita...@ispbrasil.com.br skype: itamarjp icq: 81053601 +55 11 4063 5033 +55 34 3221 8599 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
PV and LVM resize ext4
Hello, I am about to buy a 60GB SSD to replace my netbook's current 160GB drive and wanted to get some feedback whether the process I am thinking of taking to resize the drives will work properly. So here goes: My volume group in this example is called: vg_taitsvolume The logical volume (root) being resized is: lv_root The physical volume is: /dev/sda2 Current Partition Sizes: /boot - 200M - formatted ext3 swap - 4GB - swap / - 145GB - formatted ext4 There is only ~8GB in use on the / fs Boot into a LiveCD e2fsck -f /dev/vg_taitsvolume/lv_root resize2fs -p /dev/vg_taitsvolume/lv_root 30G lvreduce --size 30G vg_taitsvolume/lv_root --test lvreduce --size 30G vg_taitsvolume/lv_root pvresize --setphysicalvolumesize 40G /dev/sda2 (I chose 40GB to keep it away from the maximum of 60GB so there are no issues with block sizes/sectors) use gparted to resize /dev/sda2 to 40G dd to smaller drive use gparted to resize /dev/sda2 to maximum allowed pvresize /dev/sda2 lvextend /dev/vg_hornet/lv_root /dev/sda2 e2fsck -f /dev/vg_hornet/lv_root resize2fs /dev/vg_hornet/lv_root So, will this work? Are there any steps I can take out? I haven't really played with LVM before (at all) so I thought I would come up with my own steps through the man pages and put it to the list to see if anyone has either completed what I need to do, or has any tips. I will be backing up the important files so if something goes wrong it is not a problem, but kind of an annoyance. Thanks, Tait signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Advice on what dmsetup/fdisk/lvm does!
Hi, I'm trying to create a multipath environment for my server attached to a hp 2012sa msa disk storage device. Where I am struggling is understanding some low level concepts. I've setup the multipath config file, and can see the following enteries: multipath -ll mpath0 (3600c0ff000d7ba4f4575b24a0100) dm-5 HP,MSA2012sa [size=9.1T][features=1 queue_if_no_path][hwhandler=0][rw] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=50][active] \_ 0:0:0:1 sda 8:0 [active][ready] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=10][enabled] \_ 1:0:0:2 sdb 8:16 [active][ready] cat /proc/partitions shows: 8 0 9767460864 sda 816 9767460864 sdb 104 0 71652960 cciss/c0d0 104 1 104391 cciss/c0d0p1 104 2 71545477 cciss/c0d0p2 253 05111808 dm-0 253 15111808 dm-1 253 21015808 dm-2 253 35111808 dm-3 253 46127616 dm-4 253 5 9767460864 dm-5 sda and sdb are the same, as there is only one disk but two separate paths to it, so it shows up twice under different device mappings. My question now is after restarting mutlipathd, what is the next step? Do I need to use dmsetup, searching the web I still can't understand why I need it. I'm looking to create a logical volume on this disk. Once multipath is working should I only see one entry in /proc/partitions, instead of /dev/sda and /dev/sdb? Thanks Dan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Testdisk error for LVM partition recover
Arun Shrimali wrote: > > As you said I used the normal install disk and using rescue mode, > I ask for continue and read only mode > > Continue --> > Error processing LVM > There is inconsistent LVM data on logical volume > Vg-resobank-LogVol02. you can reinitialise all related PVs (/dev/sda1) > which will erase the LVM metadata, or ignore which will preserve the > contents. > > Ignore > > you don't have any Linux partition, press return to get a shell. The > system will reboot automatically when you exit from the shell. > > And when we boot from HDD it give me following prompt : > > 1234f: > > any further help > > Arun > I wish I had more ideas for you. I was trying to think of how to safely recover the LVs, but I don't know enough to sugest a safe way to do it... I wish I could be of more help! Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Testdisk error for LVM partition recover
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > > Please, do not post is HTML! > > Arun Shrimali wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Mikkel wrote: > > > >> What happens when you try to boot? Do you get an error message? If > >> so, what is it? > > > > /Boot disk failure/ > > > > If Grub is loading, you may be able to boot with the > >> previous kernel. If Grub is not loading, you can probably use the > >> install disk in the rescue mode to re-install Grub. > > > > /I tried to reinstall the grub with live CD, but it says "file not found"/ > > > > /Arun/ > > > You are much better off using a normal install disk, or the net > install CD, and using the rescue mode. You let it mount your file > systems, and then run chroot /mnt/sysimage. You run grub-install > from there. > > If this does not work, report back the error messages. Do not > respond with a HTML message. > > Mikkel > -- > > Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, > for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@redhat.com > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines As you said I used the normal install disk and using rescue mode, I ask for continue and read only mode Continue --> Error processing LVM There is inconsistent LVM data on logical volume Vg-resobank-LogVol02. you can reinitialise all related PVs (/dev/sda1) which will erase the LVM metadata, or ignore which will preserve the contents. Ignore > you don't have any Linux partition, press return to get a shell. The system will reboot automatically when you exit from the shell. And when we boot from HDD it give me following prompt : 1234f: any further help Arun -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Testdisk error for LVM partition recover
Please, do not post is HTML! Arun Shrimali wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Mikkel wrote: > >> What happens when you try to boot? Do you get an error message? If >> so, what is it? > > /Boot disk failure/ > > If Grub is loading, you may be able to boot with the >> previous kernel. If Grub is not loading, you can probably use the >> install disk in the rescue mode to re-install Grub. > > /I tried to reinstall the grub with live CD, but it says "file not found"/ > > /Arun/ > You are much better off using a normal install disk, or the net install CD, and using the rescue mode. You let it mount your file systems, and then run chroot /mnt/sysimage. You run grub-install from there. If this does not work, report back the error messages. Do not respond with a HTML message. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Testdisk error for LVM partition recover
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Arun Shrimali wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson< > mik...@infinity-ltd.com> wrote: > > Arun Shrimali wrote: > >> Dear All, > >> > >> Recently I have loaded Fedora 11, but yesterday fedora refused to boot. > >> on googling I have found that testdisk is the best tool to recover the > >> data, but end of it ... > >> > > Weather testdisk is the best tool depends on what the problem is. > > What happens when you try to boot? Do you get an error message? If > > so, what is it? If Grub is loading, you may be able to boot with the > > previous kernel. If Grub is not loading, you can probably use the > > install disk in the rescue mode to re-install Grub. > > > > Mikkel > > -- > > > > Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, > > for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! > > > > > > -- > > fedora-list mailing list > > fedora-list@redhat.com > > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > > Guidelines: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines > > > > Weather testdisk is the best tool depends on what the problem is. > *I really don't know * > > > What happens when you try to boot? Do you get an error message? If > > so, what is it? > > *Boot disk failure* > > If Grub is loading, you may be able to boot with the > > previous kernel. If Grub is not loading, you can probably use the > > install disk in the rescue mode to re-install Grub. > > *I tried to reinstall the grub with live CD, but it says "file not found"* > > *Arun* > > Fedora 11 use the ext4 file system Is there any tools through which I can recover files from crashed HDD which has ext4 file system Arun -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Testdisk error for LVM partition recover
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson< mik...@infinity-ltd.com> wrote: > Arun Shrimali wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Recently I have loaded Fedora 11, but yesterday fedora refused to boot. >> on googling I have found that testdisk is the best tool to recover the >> data, but end of it ... >> > Weather testdisk is the best tool depends on what the problem is. > What happens when you try to boot? Do you get an error message? If > so, what is it? If Grub is loading, you may be able to boot with the > previous kernel. If Grub is not loading, you can probably use the > install disk in the rescue mode to re-install Grub. > > Mikkel > -- > > Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, > for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@redhat.com > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines > Weather testdisk is the best tool depends on what the problem is. *I really don't know * > What happens when you try to boot? Do you get an error message? If > so, what is it? *Boot disk failure* If Grub is loading, you may be able to boot with the > previous kernel. If Grub is not loading, you can probably use the > install disk in the rescue mode to re-install Grub. *I tried to reinstall the grub with live CD, but it says "file not found"* *Arun* -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Testdisk error for LVM partition recover
Arun Shrimali wrote: > Dear All, > > Recently I have loaded Fedora 11, but yesterday fedora refused to boot. > on googling I have found that testdisk is the best tool to recover the > data, but end of it ... > Weather testdisk is the best tool depends on what the problem is. What happens when you try to boot? Do you get an error message? If so, what is it? If Grub is loading, you may be able to boot with the previous kernel. If Grub is not loading, you can probably use the install disk in the rescue mode to re-install Grub. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Testdisk error for LVM partition recover
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Arun Shrimali wrote: > Dear All, > > Is there nobody who can help me in recovering data . > I'd make a copy of the data using dd_rescue or something similar first, then test your recovery methods using the copy. Its not clear if you have done this but I'd call that step one. Foremost is another tool that may help you recover some data. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Testdisk error for LVM partition recover
Dear All, Is there nobody who can help me in recovering data . Arun On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Arun Shrimali wrote: > Dear All, > > Recently I have loaded Fedora 11, but yesterday fedora refused to boot. > on googling I have found that testdisk is the best tool to recover the > data, but end of it ... > My steps are as attached > > > finally it give me error as follows : > > The harddisk (80 GB/74Gib) seems too small (<84GB / 78GiB) > > Can any Testdisk expert help me … > > regards > > Arun > -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Testdisk error for LVM partition recover
Dear All, Recently I have loaded Fedora 11, but yesterday fedora refused to boot. on googling I have found that testdisk is the best tool to recover the data, but end of it ... My steps are as attached finally it give me error as follows : The harddisk (80 GB/74Gib) seems too small (<84GB / 78GiB) Can any Testdisk expert help me … regards Arun recovery.odt Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Converting to EXT4 on encrypted lvm
Bruno Wolff III wrote: > That device is the encrypted block device that lvm is stored on. tune2fs > isn't going to like that though. As we are talking about the root filesystem, a simple "df" or "mount" or "cat /etc/fstab" could show the device mounted on the mount point "/". -- Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Converting to EXT4 on encrypted lvm
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 13:37:32 -0600, "Andrig T. Miller" wrote: > Yes, I found it under /dev/mapper, and it is as follows: > > luks-89b2dea1-11d5-4d7f-b355-ffec575a1b09 > > I'll try this in a moment, and see if it works. That won't be what you want. lvm must export the block devices it supplies somewhere else. That device is the encrypted block device that lvm is stored on. tune2fs isn't going to like that though. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Converting to EXT4 on encrypted lvm
Yes, I found it under /dev/mapper, and it is as follows: luks-89b2dea1-11d5-4d7f-b355-ffec575a1b09 I'll try this in a moment, and see if it works. Thanks for the help. Andy On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 13:05:09 -0600, > "Andrig T. Miller" wrote: >> After upgrading to Fedora 11 x86_64, I started to look into converting >> to EXT4 from EXT3. >> >> My / partition is an lvm that is encrypted (I do have a separate /boot). >> >> I tried following the instructions using tune2fs -O >> extents,uninit_bg,dir_index /dev/sda2 (my / device and /boot is >> /dev/sda1). >> >> Finally, I just booted by changing /etc/fstab to specify ext4, which >> works fine, but from reading the various instructions, I won't have >> the new features turned on unless I am able to use tune2fs >> successfully. > > You have to point to the block device your file system is on, not the disk > partition. I have used tune2fs on encrypted partitions and the device > is /dev/mapper/luks-someluksuuid . In your case you need to find the lvm > device name used for the file system. I don't know how those look, but > I would expect a device mapper entry for it, so /dev/mapper would be a > good place to look. You'll have a luks entry there as well, but you will > not want to use it as that is the device that lvm is on, not a device > provided by lvm. > -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Converting to EXT4 on encrypted lvm
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 13:05:09 -0600, "Andrig T. Miller" wrote: > After upgrading to Fedora 11 x86_64, I started to look into converting > to EXT4 from EXT3. > > My / partition is an lvm that is encrypted (I do have a separate /boot). > > I tried following the instructions using tune2fs -O > extents,uninit_bg,dir_index /dev/sda2 (my / device and /boot is > /dev/sda1). > > Finally, I just booted by changing /etc/fstab to specify ext4, which > works fine, but from reading the various instructions, I won't have > the new features turned on unless I am able to use tune2fs > successfully. You have to point to the block device your file system is on, not the disk partition. I have used tune2fs on encrypted partitions and the device is /dev/mapper/luks-someluksuuid . In your case you need to find the lvm device name used for the file system. I don't know how those look, but I would expect a device mapper entry for it, so /dev/mapper would be a good place to look. You'll have a luks entry there as well, but you will not want to use it as that is the device that lvm is on, not a device provided by lvm. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Converting to EXT4 on encrypted lvm
After upgrading to Fedora 11 x86_64, I started to look into converting to EXT4 from EXT3. My / partition is an lvm that is encrypted (I do have a separate /boot). I tried following the instructions using tune2fs -O extents,uninit_bg,dir_index /dev/sda2 (my / device and /boot is /dev/sda1). I get the following error: tune2fs 1.41.4 (27-Jan-2009) tune2fs: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/sda2 Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock. Finally, I just booted by changing /etc/fstab to specify ext4, which works fine, but from reading the various instructions, I won't have the new features turned on unless I am able to use tune2fs successfully. Is the error I'm getting because its an encrypted volume? Is there different instructions for an encrypted volume? Thanks for any help. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Retrieving data from external disk with lvm partitions?
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 10:46 -0700, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: > Jurgen Kramer writes: > > VolGroup00 is the partition I want to mount. > > > > What magic commands do I need to be able to mount the lvm partition on > > the external drive? > > Probably you need to do this: > > # lvm > lvm> vgchange -ay VolGroup00 > lvm> exit Thanks, that worked! The proper devices were created and I am now happily copying the needed data. Jurgen > If I were you, I'd also take the opportunity to rename the VG to > something a bit more indicative of what is on it. eg. > > vgrename VolGroup00 vg_f10 > > (This needs to be done before the "vgchange".) > > -wolfgang > -- > Wolfgang S. Rupprecht Android 1.5 (Cupcake) and Fedora-11 > -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Retrieving data from external disk with lvm partitions?
Jurgen Kramer writes: > VolGroup00 is the partition I want to mount. > > What magic commands do I need to be able to mount the lvm partition on > the external drive? Probably you need to do this: # lvm lvm> vgchange -ay VolGroup00 lvm> exit If I were you, I'd also take the opportunity to rename the VG to something a bit more indicative of what is on it. eg. vgrename VolGroup00 vg_f10 (This needs to be done before the "vgchange".) -wolfgang -- Wolfgang S. Rupprecht Android 1.5 (Cupcake) and Fedora-11 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Retrieving data from external disk with lvm partitions?
After installing F11 on a new hard disk (I used the upgrade to F11 as an excuse to buy a faster disk) a now want to copy over some data from the old hard disk containing F10. I attached the old drive to the system via a sata-to-usb converter but I am unable to mount any of the lvm partitions on it. While trying to various lvm commands I can see the partitions but I cannot mount them as there are no corresponding devices in /dev or /dev/mapper. pvscan output: PV /dev/sdf2 VG VolGroup00 lvm2 [931.31 GB / 32.00 MB free] PV /dev/sda2 VG vg_paragon lvm2 [931.31 GB / 0free] Total: 2 [1.82 TB] / in use: 2 [1.82 TB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] pvdisplay output: --- Physical volume --- PV Name /dev/sdf2 VG Name VolGroup00 PV Size 931.32 GB / not usable 7.11 MB Allocatable yes PE Size (KByte) 32768 Total PE 29802 Free PE 1 Allocated PE 29801 PV UUID rlSI5y-Tp8c-TdGq-dMO6-vMEU-zKRx-ftKgsw VolGroup00 is the partition I want to mount. What magic commands do I need to be able to mount the lvm partition on the external drive? Thanks, Jurgen -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
F11 mkinitrd fails with LVM on multiple md devices
My root filesystem is on a logical volume; the volume group is spread across multiple software RAID (md) devices. mkinitrd in Fedora 11 is ignoring all but one of the md devices. It only includes a mdadm -A ... line in the nash script for that device, and it would presumably only include the RAID modules required by that device. (All of my md devices are RAID-1, so I can't test this.) It looks like the logic to enumerate and handle all of the devices required by a volume group was in handlelvordev() in Fedora 10's version of mkinitrd. This function has been removed, and I can't find anything in the new version of mkinitrd that looks like it even tries to handle all of the physical volumes in a volume group. Did I miss something? -- Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Anyone Successfully Install with RAID1 or LVM over RAID1?
Could you post the bug number? Thanks Bob My apologies. I intended to include that information in the original post. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496440 Thanks, --Brian -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Anyone Successfully Install with RAID1 or LVM over RAID1?
Could you post the bug number? Thanks Bob On 06/11/2009 06:27 PM, Brian Hanks wrote: Has anyone successfully installed F11 x86_64 using RAID1 or LVM on top of RAID1? If so, what was the key to your success? I'm looking for some suggestions. I must admit that I'm getting a bit frustrated with Fedora releases that have Anaconda partitioning issues. It seems that every second or third release I can successfully install a system with RAID1/LVM. This time around, it's not looking so good. I participated in pre-release testing and thought that these problems were behind us. Anyway, I've install F11 (i386 & x86_64) successfully several times as long as I leave RAID1 out of the picture. I did find a few other small bugs in the partitioning tool, but none that I couldn't work around. I have filed a bug report for this latest issue. My main problem at this point is that I want a fresh F11 install on my main workstation, but the installer isn't happy with my preferred partition scheme. I also need to point out that this is a partitioning layout that I've been using successfully using for many, many years and many, many versions of RedHat/Fedora. Hopefully, there will be some solution in the near future. --Brian Hanks -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Anyone Successfully Install with RAID1 or LVM over RAID1?
Has anyone successfully installed F11 x86_64 using RAID1 or LVM on top of RAID1? If so, what was the key to your success? I'm looking for some suggestions. I must admit that I'm getting a bit frustrated with Fedora releases that have Anaconda partitioning issues. It seems that every second or third release I can successfully install a system with RAID1/LVM. This time around, it's not looking so good. I participated in pre-release testing and thought that these problems were behind us. Anyway, I've install F11 (i386 & x86_64) successfully several times as long as I leave RAID1 out of the picture. I did find a few other small bugs in the partitioning tool, but none that I couldn't work around. I have filed a bug report for this latest issue. My main problem at this point is that I want a fresh F11 install on my main workstation, but the installer isn't happy with my preferred partition scheme. I also need to point out that this is a partitioning layout that I've been using successfully using for many, many years and many, many versions of RedHat/Fedora. Hopefully, there will be some solution in the near future. --Brian Hanks -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: is lvm deprecated?
Mike Burger wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Mike Burger wrote: It's actually very simple and painless. I burst out laughing when I read this. I'm not sure if I should be happy or unhappy about your laughter...especially since my response was born out of nearly 7 years of using LVM tools under AIX, and 4 or 5 of doing so under Fedora. Which part of my response drove you to laughter, if I may? The "simple and painless" part. I spent eight years using AIX, and I have avoided LVM like Swine Flu. The best I can say about LVM is "comprehensible" because I've used LVM. But the fact that LVM *almost* hides the complexity is my issue; it doesn't leave everything exposed but it doesn't really cover it smoothly. And the idea of having yet another program doing raid, or crypt, just somehow leaves me cold. Guess it's me, I want to either have full control of detail or not need any. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: is lvm deprecated?
David Burns wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Mike Burger wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Mike Burger wrote: What you'll want to do, now, is to run system-config-lvm, and run through the process of creating actual logical volumes and setting them up as filesystems. It's actually very simple and painless. I burst out laughing when I read this. I'm not sure if I should be happy or unhappy about your laughter...especially since my response was born out of nearly 7 years of using LVM tools under AIX, and 4 or 5 of doing so under Fedora. Which part of my response drove you to laughter, if I may? It's difficult to explain. I wasn't thinking anything like "Whoa, that person must be so crazy" or anything like that. It was just pretty obvious that our perspectives are completely and (to me) amusingly different. Calling LVM 'useful' or 'powerful' would not have made my eyes bat, but 'simple' is too close to 'obvious' (that was the warm-up) and 'painless'? I guess it seemed to me that the entire conversation would never have happened if it was painless. Sort of like saying "The pain you feel is an illusion! Master your emotions! Get a grip!" I guess it could also be seen as funny from the perspective of, well, nothing is so simple and painless that there is no one lazy enough to get confused by it and earn themselves some pain by their confusion. Let me confess, I've always tried to remain as ignorant as possible about LVM, and so any confusion and pain I've encountered is well earned by me. It is mine alone. It's a bit analogous to newbies struggling with the distinctions between devices, disks, partitions, and file systems. Most of these things can now be dealt with in a way that, once mastered, seems fairly simple and painless (though people still trip up). But to someone who is new to it, it seems pretty annoying. Maybe just a bit more effort with LVM would bring me to the promised land of painless simplicity. Dave My turn, ROTFL !!! -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: is lvm deprecated?
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Mike Burger wrote: > > > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Mike Burger > > wrote: > >> What you'll want to do, now, is to run system-config-lvm, and run > >> through > >> the process of creating actual logical volumes and setting them up as > >> filesystems. > >> > >> It's actually very simple and painless. > > > > > > I burst out laughing when I read this. > > I'm not sure if I should be happy or unhappy about your > laughter...especially since my response was born out of nearly 7 years of > using LVM tools under AIX, and 4 or 5 of doing so under Fedora. > > Which part of my response drove you to laughter, if I may? It's difficult to explain. I wasn't thinking anything like "Whoa, that person must be so crazy" or anything like that. It was just pretty obvious that our perspectives are completely and (to me) amusingly different. Calling LVM 'useful' or 'powerful' would not have made my eyes bat, but 'simple' is too close to 'obvious' (that was the warm-up) and 'painless'? I guess it seemed to me that the entire conversation would never have happened if it was painless. Sort of like saying "The pain you feel is an illusion! Master your emotions! Get a grip!" I guess it could also be seen as funny from the perspective of, well, nothing is so simple and painless that there is no one lazy enough to get confused by it and earn themselves some pain by their confusion. Let me confess, I've always tried to remain as ignorant as possible about LVM, and so any confusion and pain I've encountered is well earned by me. It is mine alone. It's a bit analogous to newbies struggling with the distinctions between devices, disks, partitions, and file systems. Most of these things can now be dealt with in a way that, once mastered, seems fairly simple and painless (though people still trip up). But to someone who is new to it, it seems pretty annoying. Maybe just a bit more effort with LVM would bring me to the promised land of painless simplicity. Dave -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: is lvm deprecated?
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Mike Burger > wrote: > >> >> What you appear to have done is created your "volume groups", but not >> created any actual logical volumes in them, nor formatted those logical >> volumes to create filesystems. >> >> What you'll want to do, now, is to run system-config-lvm, and run >> through >> the process of creating actual logical volumes and setting them up as >> filesystems. >> >> It's actually very simple and painless. > > > I burst out laughing when I read this. I'm not sure if I should be happy or unhappy about your laughter...especially since my response was born out of nearly 7 years of using LVM tools under AIX, and 4 or 5 of doing so under Fedora. Which part of my response drove you to laughter, if I may? -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II BBS telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org To be notified of updates to the web site, visit: https://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update or send a blank email message to: site-update-subscr...@bubbanfriends.org -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: is lvm deprecated?
On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 13:26 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote: > Mike Burger wrote: > > > It's actually very simple and painless. > > LVM is reasonably simple. > > But in my view its disadvantages - > particularly the difficulty of dealing with any kind of corruption - > far outweigh its advantages. I agree that corruption can be a huge issue for LVM, but it's really an issue for any storage configuration, and needs to be dealt with using other strategies. > The main advantage - the ease with which partition sizes > can be changed - is much less significant > in this era of enormous disks. On the contrary, I think that large disks make LVM even more valuable. As one small example, LVM enables live migration -- moving from one disk to another while a system is running. Back when we were dealing with megabytes of data, the downtime needed to move those megabytes to another disk was small. On a modern box, disks are in the terrabyte range -- approaching a million times larger, but with transfer speeds that are nowhere near a million times faster -- and it can take many hours to migrate between disks. Being able to do that live greatly reduces downtime (to perhaps a few minutes if the disks can't be hot-plugged, or no downtime if the disks are hot-pluggable). (It looks like volume management is moving down to the filesystem level. This will be both good and bad; from an optimization point of view, having the filesystem aware of the low-level storage details will be valuable, but I cringe at the thought of having duplicated tools to do volume management within each different filesystem type). -Chris -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: is lvm deprecated?
Mike Burger wrote: > It's actually very simple and painless. LVM is reasonably simple. But in my view its disadvantages - particularly the difficulty of dealing with any kind of corruption - far outweigh its advantages. The main advantage - the ease with which partition sizes can be changed - is much less significant in this era of enormous disks. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: is lvm deprecated?
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Mike Burger wrote: > > What you appear to have done is created your "volume groups", but not > created any actual logical volumes in them, nor formatted those logical > volumes to create filesystems. > > What you'll want to do, now, is to run system-config-lvm, and run through > the process of creating actual logical volumes and setting them up as > filesystems. > > It's actually very simple and painless. I burst out laughing when I read this. Dave -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: is lvm deprecated?
Richard Shaw wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Mike Wright wrote: Hi all, This is wrt f10. I have an 80G drive. When I installed f10 I chose a custom layout for it. My intent was to have a separate /boot partition, swap partition, and 4 lvms of approx. 20G each. When all was said and done the drive ended up looking like this: /dev/sda1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux /dev/sda2 14243519454715 83 Linux /dev/sda32436485719454715 8e Linux LVM /dev/sda44858996441021977+ 5 Extended /dev/sda54858727919454683+ 8e Linux LVM /dev/sda672807406 1020096 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda77407996420547103+ 8e Linux LVM Certainly not what I intended. Tried lvdisplay and got no results. Tried lvscan first then lvdisplay and got the same outcome. vgdisplay, ditto. pvdisplay, nada. fdisk seems to think there are logical volumes. cat /etc/mtab and I see this: /dev/mapper/pdc_gdgdgcfhp1 (and 2). In fact in /dev/mapper there are 9 of these. Anybody know where this is documented? Is lvm dead? Inquiring minds want to know ;) Thanks for any insight, Mike Wright I think what you really want is one volume group and four logical volumes. I think you created 3 volume groups but perhaps someone with more LVM experience would know better. Been using and enjoying lvm2 for quite a while. What you describe is exactly what I wanted. I thought I'd done this correctly. Done it many times before. I guess I screwed it up but wasn't sure whether it was me or the new installer. Thanx, :m) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: is lvm deprecated?
> Hi all, > > This is wrt f10. > > I have an 80G drive. When I installed f10 I chose a custom layout for > it. My intent was to have a separate /boot partition, swap partition, > and 4 lvms of approx. 20G each. > > When all was said and done the drive ended up looking like this: > > /dev/sda1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux > /dev/sda2 14243519454715 83 Linux > /dev/sda32436 485719454715 8e Linux LVM > /dev/sda44858996441021977+ 5 Extended > /dev/sda5 4858727919454683+ 8e Linux LVM > /dev/sda672807406 1020096 82 Linux swap / > Solaris > /dev/sda7 7407996420547103+ 8e Linux LVM > > Certainly not what I intended. > > Tried lvdisplay and got no results. Tried lvscan first then lvdisplay > and got the same outcome. vgdisplay, ditto. pvdisplay, nada. fdisk > seems to think there are logical volumes. > > cat /etc/mtab and I see this: /dev/mapper/pdc_gdgdgcfhp1 (and 2). In > fact in /dev/mapper there are 9 of these. > > Anybody know where this is documented? Is lvm dead? Inquiring minds > want to know ;) > > Thanks for any insight, > Mike Wright LVM is very much alive and in use. What you appear to have done is created your "volume groups", but not created any actual logical volumes in them, nor formatted those logical volumes to create filesystems. What you'll want to do, now, is to run system-config-lvm, and run through the process of creating actual logical volumes and setting them up as filesystems. It's actually very simple and painless. -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II BBS telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org To be notified of updates to the web site, visit: https://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update or send a blank email message to: site-update-subscr...@bubbanfriends.org -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: is lvm deprecated?
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Mike Wright wrote: > Hi all, > > This is wrt f10. > > I have an 80G drive. When I installed f10 I chose a custom layout for it. > My intent was to have a separate /boot partition, swap partition, and 4 > lvms of approx. 20G each. > > When all was said and done the drive ended up looking like this: > > /dev/sda1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux > /dev/sda2 14243519454715 83 Linux > /dev/sda32436 485719454715 8e Linux LVM > /dev/sda44858996441021977+ 5 Extended > /dev/sda5 4858727919454683+ 8e Linux LVM > /dev/sda672807406 1020096 82 Linux swap / > Solaris > /dev/sda7 7407996420547103+ 8e Linux LVM > > Certainly not what I intended. > > Tried lvdisplay and got no results. Tried lvscan first then lvdisplay and > got the same outcome. vgdisplay, ditto. pvdisplay, nada. fdisk seems to > think there are logical volumes. > > cat /etc/mtab and I see this: /dev/mapper/pdc_gdgdgcfhp1 (and 2). In fact > in /dev/mapper there are 9 of these. > > Anybody know where this is documented? Is lvm dead? Inquiring minds want > to know ;) > > Thanks for any insight, > Mike Wright > I think what you really want is one volume group and four logical volumes. I think you created 3 volume groups but perhaps someone with more LVM experience would know better. Richard -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
is lvm deprecated?
Hi all, This is wrt f10. I have an 80G drive. When I installed f10 I chose a custom layout for it. My intent was to have a separate /boot partition, swap partition, and 4 lvms of approx. 20G each. When all was said and done the drive ended up looking like this: /dev/sda1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux /dev/sda2 14243519454715 83 Linux /dev/sda32436485719454715 8e Linux LVM /dev/sda44858996441021977+ 5 Extended /dev/sda54858727919454683+ 8e Linux LVM /dev/sda672807406 1020096 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda77407996420547103+ 8e Linux LVM Certainly not what I intended. Tried lvdisplay and got no results. Tried lvscan first then lvdisplay and got the same outcome. vgdisplay, ditto. pvdisplay, nada. fdisk seems to think there are logical volumes. cat /etc/mtab and I see this: /dev/mapper/pdc_gdgdgcfhp1 (and 2). In fact in /dev/mapper there are 9 of these. Anybody know where this is documented? Is lvm dead? Inquiring minds want to know ;) Thanks for any insight, Mike Wright -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: FC10 - External USB drive and LVM
Carl D. Roth wrote: > > You need to do two things: > > 1) make sure the VG name on the USB drive is not the same as your new > system. If both drives have the same VG name you will have problems. > > 2) after attaching the USB drive, run > > # pvscan > # vgchange -a y > > Note that LVM isn't usually initialized except at boot time. > > If you get stuck by item (1) you can rename the VG using a rescue disk: > > # lvm vgrename OLD NEW > > but you still may be hit by item (1) until you disconnect the internal > hard disk. > You can use the the UUID to specify witch volume group to change when you have two with the same name. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: FC10 - External USB drive and LVM
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:23:11 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > Gary Stainburn wrote: >> Hi folks. >> >> I tried upgrading my FC7 desktop to FC10 which resulted in the PC not >> booting, crashing during GRUB. >> >> I have now installed FC10 onto a new HDD and want to copy the contents >> from my old drive to my new one. >> >> I thought that the easiest way would be to use my USB external caddy, >> but I have a problem. The box sees the drive, and mounts /boot no >> problem. >> >> However, I don't have access to the main contents as they were handled >> by LVM. How can I now acces those filesystems? >> You need to do two things: 1) make sure the VG name on the USB drive is not the same as your new system. If both drives have the same VG name you will have problems. 2) after attaching the USB drive, run # pvscan # vgchange -a y Note that LVM isn't usually initialized except at boot time. If you get stuck by item (1) you can rename the VG using a rescue disk: # lvm vgrename OLD NEW but you still may be hit by item (1) until you disconnect the internal hard disk. C -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: FC10 - External USB drive and LVM
Gary Stainburn wrote: > Hi folks. > > I tried upgrading my FC7 desktop to FC10 which resulted in the PC not > booting, > crashing during GRUB. > > I have now installed FC10 onto a new HDD and want to copy the contents from > my > old drive to my new one. > > I thought that the easiest way would be to use my USB external caddy, but I > have a problem. The box sees the drive, and mounts /boot no problem. > > However, I don't have access to the main contents as they were handled by > LVM. > How can I now acces those filesystems? > Probably the easiest would be to run system-config-lvm. In Grub, it is accessed by System --> Administration --> Logical Volume Management. I have not used it on removable media, but it should work. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
FC10 - External USB drive and LVM
Hi folks. I tried upgrading my FC7 desktop to FC10 which resulted in the PC not booting, crashing during GRUB. I have now installed FC10 onto a new HDD and want to copy the contents from my old drive to my new one. I thought that the easiest way would be to use my USB external caddy, but I have a problem. The box sees the drive, and mounts /boot no problem. However, I don't have access to the main contents as they were handled by LVM. How can I now acces those filesystems? The state of the PC is: [r...@lcomp5 ~]# mount /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 on / type ext3 (rw) /proc on /proc type proc (rw) sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620) /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext3 (rw) tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw) none on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw) sunrpc on /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs type rpc_pipefs (rw) gvfs-fuse-daemon on /home/gary/.gvfs type fuse.gvfs-fuse-daemon (rw,nosuid,nodev,user=gary) /dev/sdb1 on /media/-boot type ext3 (rw,nosuid,nodev,uhelper=hal) [r...@lcomp5 ~]#fdisk /dev/sdb The number of cylinders for this disk is set to 9964. There is nothing wrong with that, but this is larger than 1024, and could in certain setups cause problems with: 1) software that runs at boot time (e.g., old versions of LILO) 2) booting and partitioning software from other OSs (e.g., DOS FDISK, OS/2 FDISK) Command (m for help): p Disk /dev/sdb: 81.9 GB, 81964302336 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9964 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xd102d102 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux /dev/sdb2 14996479931407+ 8e Linux LVM Command (m for help): q [r...@lcomp5 ~]# -- Gary Stainburn This email does not contain private or confidential material as it may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Aldo Foot wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Robin Laing wrote: There needs to be a firm way of changing and editing LVM characteristics in these situations. -- Robin Laing Hopefully the LVM toolset will be refined overtime. Rick said he'd look into the bugzilla reports; hopefully someone will take notice of what's being discussed. We could spend the whole day creating volumes, but the real test is when we need to implement some rescue procedure as the one at hand. I browsed bugzilla and didn't see any complaints of this type. I've filed a bug (491737) and suggested some fixes/enhancements. We'll see what happens. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ri...@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2 - -- -"Hello. My PID is Inigo Montoya. You `kill -9'-ed my parent- - process. Prepare to vi." - -- -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Robin Laing wrote: > > There needs to be a firm way of changing and editing LVM characteristics in > these situations. > > -- > Robin Laing Hopefully the LVM toolset will be refined overtime. Rick said he'd look into the bugzilla reports; hopefully someone will take notice of what's being discussed. We could spend the whole day creating volumes, but the real test is when we need to implement some rescue procedure as the one at hand. ~af -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Monday 23 March 2009 15:53:01 Robin Laing wrote: > There needs to be a firm way of changing and editing LVM characteristics > in these situations. Yeah, boot from rescue disk and rename the first one it sees, should then let the other be visible. You could, at a pinch, change the partition type of the PVs of the "visible" volume group, which should lead to the "hidden" one appearing, although you might have to delete the "metadata cache" as mentioned earlier in the thread. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Frank Cox wrote: One of my computers died and, of course, there is un-backed-up data on there that I want to recover if I can. The hard drive seems to be in good shape so I took it out of the dead box and installed it on this computer (my main desktop machine.) I have been doing a bunch of reading about logical volumes and some of what I've found is self-contradictory, incomplete and stuff that I just don't really understand (yet.) And, as you can imagine, since this is my main desktop machine I'm not terribly anxious to just start playing around with the lvm configuration without knowing what I'm doing. Here are my findings so far: [r...@mutt ~]# pvscan PV /dev/sdb2 VG VolGroup00 lvm2 [279.25 GB / 32.00 MB free] PV /dev/sda2 VG VolGroup00 lvm2 [465.56 GB / 32.00 MB free] Total: 2 [744.81 GB] / in use: 2 [744.81 GB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] [r...@mutt ~]# lvscan ACTIVE'/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00' [277.28 GB] inherit ACTIVE'/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01' [1.94 GB] inherit It looks like the machine can see the second drive and the lvm that's on it /dev/sdb2, but it has the same VolGroup name as /dev/sda2. What I would like to do is twofold: First, and most importantly, I would like to mount it as-is so I can copy my data off of there. Second, I would like to re-format it and add it to the storage capacity that I already have on this machine. Heck, if it's still a good drive I might as well put it to use. So, how can I mount VolGroup00 that's on /dev/sdb2? The vgchange command followed by a simple mount command looks like what I want to do, but what's the syntax? As I said, I really don't want to bugger up my primary hard drive I have read this thread and I wish I had seen something like it two years ago. I had upgraded a system that used LVM and replaced two drives to increase the total available space. It turned out that I had forgotten to backup a directory. To late and rushing. I wanted to install the removed drive to see if the directory was on that drive but it was part of the old group (generic name creation) and strange and wonderful problems started to crop up. I never did get the drive mounted back then. There needs to be a firm way of changing and editing LVM characteristics in these situations. -- Robin Laing -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Friday 20 March 2009 18:52:59 Aldo Foot wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Frank Cox wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:24:14 + > > > > Bill Crawford wrote: > >> You should probably be able to get some sense out of this by doing: > >> > >> # vgrename 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp vg_sda2 > > > > [frank...@mutt temp]$ su -c "vgrename > > 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp vg_sda2" Password: > > Volume group 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp not found. > > Isn't that UUID is for an actual Hard Drive partition (PV)? > Things like "PV UUID" and "LV UUID" are not the same thing. Nah, it was for the LV. He might have been able to get the PV UUID from one of the other tools, I was being too clever :o) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:39 PM, jdow wrote: > From: "Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak" > Sent: Thursday, 2009, March 19 05:10 > > >> Frank Cox wrote: >>> >>> It looks like the machine can see the second drive and the lvm that's on >>> it >>> /dev/sdb2, but it has the same VolGroup name as /dev/sda2. >> >> Yes, this is common and annoying. Here is the guide that I followed when >> it happened to me: >> >> http://www.whoopis.com/howtos/linux_lvm_recovery.html >> >> I filed bug 461682 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461682), >> requesting that the default volume names not be so generic - they now >> incorporate the hostname, so this problem should be much less common in >> F11+. > > That's a wrong solution. GUIDs were invented to handle this sort of problem. > Suppose "Fred" has a machine he called "boundless". He has a disk problem. > He asked "Judy" to fix it. And for unknown reasons "Judy" also has a machine > called "boundless". GUIDs to the rescue. Hmm... The wrong solution? *It is* the solution because I actually used the advice given in this thread to fix a system. I don't think I understand how hostnames or GUIDs figure in this kind of situation. If you have the time, would you share with us how you've done it? > The only time GUIDs will fail is when you use "dd" to create as good a > back-up > as you can of a dying disk. Sometimes this is a bad thing, as in the > scenario > under discussion. Sometimes it is a good thing, as when I performed that > sort > of a recovery on an NTFS laptop drive. I didn't even have to reinstall > anything > after NTFS chkdisk massaged the drive. (It had a directory block it could > not > update - on the "C:" drive.) > > Sadly GUIDs are too complicated for the people naming disk partitions. In this particular LVM case, we've looked at UUIDs as they refer to Logical Volumes, which are not disk partitions. They are not the same thing. ~af -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
From: "Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak"
Sent: Thursday, 2009, March 19 05:10
Frank Cox wrote:
It looks like the machine can see the second drive and the lvm that's on
it
/dev/sdb2, but it has the same VolGroup name as /dev/sda2.
Yes, this is common and annoying. Here is the guide that I followed when
it happened to me:
http://www.whoopis.com/howtos/linux_lvm_recovery.html
I filed bug 461682 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461682),
requesting that the default volume names not be so generic - they now
incorporate the hostname, so this problem should be much less common in
F11+.
That's a wrong solution. GUIDs were invented to handle this sort of problem.
Suppose "Fred" has a machine he called "boundless". He has a disk problem.
He asked "Judy" to fix it. And for unknown reasons "Judy" also has a machine
called "boundless". GUIDs to the rescue.
The only time GUIDs will fail is when you use "dd" to create as good a
back-up
as you can of a dying disk. Sometimes this is a bad thing, as in the
scenario
under discussion. Sometimes it is a good thing, as when I performed that
sort
of a recovery on an NTFS laptop drive. I didn't even have to reinstall
anything
after NTFS chkdisk massaged the drive. (It had a directory block it could
not
update - on the "C:" drive.)
Sadly GUIDs are too complicated for the people naming disk partitions.
{^_^} Joanne
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Frank Cox wrote: On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:50:31 + Bill Crawford wrote: You need to either temporarily pull sda2 out, and boot off a rescue disk to rename it, or vice versa. Or find out the UUID of the volume ... if you're lucky, "vgdisplay --verbose" *might* pick up the duplicate and show you the UUID for it. That's what I was thinking. Since I no longer need the data on that drive (got what I wanted off of it copied the other day) would I be better off to disconnect sda2 and then boot off of a rescue disk and use fdisk to remove the partition table? Would I even need a rescue disk to do that, since sdb2 will boot this computer just fine (that's how I got it going to copy my data). Perhaps I could just boot it from sdb2 and run fdisk and clear the parition table that way. The ultimate objective here is simply to add sdb2 to the available storage on this computer. That's the easiest way out, but I'd do it in rescue mode, not when running off (what is now) sdb. Shut down, disconnect sda (500GB drive), boot in rescue mode and wipe the partition table on (what will NOW be) sda (the 300GB drive). Once that's done, you can shut down, reconnect the 500GB drive and boot normally. Check the "lvdisplay -vm" again and verify that now the extents are on sda2. Sorry it's been such a pain, Frank. You'd think the LVM tools would have options to handle this sort of thing, but they don't appear to or I'm not smart enough to figure out what they are. I'm going to trawl the bugzilla archives to see if this has been reported before (I'd be surprised if it wasn't) and if not, put a flea in their ear. Even before we have the final results, I'd like to thank Bill Crawford, Aldo Foot and several others (you know who you are) who helped pick up the slack and offer additional suggestions on this thread when I didn't (the day job does have its demands). This is a perfect example of how the list should work. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ri...@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - A day for firm decisions!!! Well, then again, maybe not!- -- -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:50:31 + Bill Crawford wrote: > You need to either temporarily pull sda2 out, and boot off a rescue disk to > rename it, or vice versa. Or find out the UUID of the volume ... if you're > lucky, "vgdisplay --verbose" *might* pick up the duplicate and show you the > UUID for it. That's what I was thinking. Since I no longer need the data on that drive (got what I wanted off of it copied the other day) would I be better off to disconnect sda2 and then boot off of a rescue disk and use fdisk to remove the partition table? Would I even need a rescue disk to do that, since sdb2 will boot this computer just fine (that's how I got it going to copy my data). Perhaps I could just boot it from sdb2 and run fdisk and clear the parition table that way. The ultimate objective here is simply to add sdb2 to the available storage on this computer. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Frank Cox wrote: > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:24:14 + > Bill Crawford wrote: > >> You should probably be able to get some sense out of this by doing: >> >> # vgrename 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp vg_sda2 > > [frank...@mutt temp]$ su -c "vgrename 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp > vg_sda2" Password: > Volume group 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp not found. > Isn't that UUID is for an actual Hard Drive partition (PV)? Things like "PV UUID" and "LV UUID" are not the same thing. ~af -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Friday 20 March 2009 18:29:33 Frank Cox wrote: > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:24:14 + > > Bill Crawford wrote: > > You should probably be able to get some sense out of this by doing: > > > > # vgrename 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp vg_sda2 > > [frank...@mutt temp]$ su -c "vgrename > 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp vg_sda2" Password: > Volume group 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp not found. Oh balls, that's the PV UUID, not the VG UUID. Back to square one. You need to either temporarily pull sda2 out, and boot off a rescue disk to rename it, or vice versa. Or find out the UUID of the volume ... if you're lucky, "vgdisplay --verbose" *might* pick up the duplicate and show you the UUID for it. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:24:14 + Bill Crawford wrote: > You should probably be able to get some sense out of this by doing: > > # vgrename 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp vg_sda2 [frank...@mutt temp]$ su -c "vgrename 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp vg_sda2" Password: Volume group 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp not found. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Thursday 19 March 2009 18:02:26 Frank Cox wrote: ... > LV Name/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 > VG NameVolGroup00 > LV UUIDyFemKc-s2bo-zZC0-cc7q-50By-4jQM-G1MsQr ... > Block device 253:0 > > --- Segments --- > Logical extent 0 to 8872: > Type linear > Physical volume /dev/sdb2 > Physical extents 0 to 8872 ... > LV Name/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 > VG NameVolGroup00 > LV UUID6UuO4G-X2dI-LirG-HvVF-zLfz-hrYW-NYZEdN ... > Block device 253:1 > > --- Segments --- > Logical extent 0 to 61: > Type linear > Physical volume /dev/sdb2 > Physical extents 8873 to 8934 Here's the useful information about what's currently active (the "Block device" should correspond to numbers you'll see in the output from "ls -l /dev/mapper") and below we can match these details against the physical devices: > PV Name /dev/sdb2 ... > Allocated PE 8935 > PV UUID SW3Qdy-7qcu-0Th1-Rb2Z-ui24-14ab-qRpMoq > > --- Physical Segments --- > Physical extent 0 to 8872: > Logical volume/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 > Logical extents 0 to 8872 This matches up with your LogVol00 above ... > Physical extent 8873 to 8934: > Logical volume/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 > Logical extents 0 to 61 ... and this with your LogVol01 above. And the rest: > PV Name /dev/sda2 > VG Name VolGroup00 ... > PV UUID 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp ... > Physical extent 0 to 14834: > Logical volume/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 > Logical extents 0 to 14834 > Physical extent 14835 to 14896: > Logical volume/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 > Logical extents 0 to 61 This is your "duplicate" volume group, which has likewise two logical volumes, but looks like one of them is considerably larger. You should probably be able to get some sense out of this by doing: # vgrename 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp vg_sda2 Give it a try, hopefully that VG is "inactive" and will let you rename it. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Thursday 19 March 2009 18:02:26 Frank Cox wrote: ... > LV Name/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 > VG NameVolGroup00 > LV UUIDyFemKc-s2bo-zZC0-cc7q-50By-4jQM-G1MsQr ... > Block device 253:0 > > --- Segments --- > Logical extent 0 to 8872: > Type linear > Physical volume /dev/sdb2 > Physical extents 0 to 8872 ... > LV Name/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 > VG NameVolGroup00 > LV UUID6UuO4G-X2dI-LirG-HvVF-zLfz-hrYW-NYZEdN ... > Block device 253:1 > > --- Segments --- > Logical extent 0 to 61: > Type linear > Physical volume /dev/sdb2 > Physical extents 8873 to 8934 Here's the useful information about what's currently active (the "Block device" should correspond to numbers you'll see in the output from "ls -l /dev/mapper") and below we can match these details against the physical devices: > PV Name /dev/sdb2 ... > Allocated PE 8935 > PV UUID SW3Qdy-7qcu-0Th1-Rb2Z-ui24-14ab-qRpMoq > > --- Physical Segments --- > Physical extent 0 to 8872: > Logical volume/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 > Logical extents 0 to 8872 This matches up with your LogVol00 above ... > Physical extent 8873 to 8934: > Logical volume/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 > Logical extents 0 to 61 ... and this with your LogVol01 above. > PV Name /dev/sda2 > VG Name VolGroup00 ... > PV UUID 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp ... > Physical extent 0 to 14834: > Logical volume/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 > Logical extents 0 to 14834 > Physical extent 14835 to 14896: > Logical volume/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 > Logical extents 0 to 61 This is your "duplicate" volume group, which has likewise two logical volumes, but looks like one of them is considerably larger. You should probably be able to get some sense out of this by doing: -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Rick Stevens wrote: > Aldo Foot wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Rick Stevens wrote: >>> >>> Frank Cox wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:07:28 -0700 >>>> Rick Stevens wrote: >>>> >>>>> We have a serious conflict here. The df command shows you as on sda, >>>>> but LVM is reporting sdb. My gut reaction is to have you do a: >>>>> >>>>> vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 >>>>> >>>>> and see if it would be successful. If so, then remove the "--test" and >>>>> cross your fingers. >>>> >>>> [r...@mutt temp]# vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 >>>> Test mode: Metadata will NOT be updated. >>>> Physical Volume "/dev/sdb2" not found in Volume Group "VolGroup00" >>>> >>>> This is consistent with the fact that the "active" Volume Group that I'm >>>> using >>>> is not on /dev/sdb2. It's just the "lvdisplay -vm" command that shows >>>> it >>>> as >>>> being in use. >>> >>> This is truly screwey. The pvscan shows sdb2 as part of VolGroup00, >>> lvdisplay shows the partition as in use, but vgreduce says sdb2 isn't >>> part of the VG. Hoo, boy. >>> >>> Frank, this is potentially dangerous, but you can try >>> >>> # pvremove /dev/sdb2 >>> >>> to wipe out sdb2's PV status. Since you seem to be running on /dev/sda >>> and vgreduce claims that /dev/sdb2 isn't part of the active VG, you >>> should be able to do this without blowing things up. >>> >>> Damn this makes me nervous! >> >> The pvremove man page does say whether the UUID can be used to remove >> a PV. Using the UUID would've come very handy in this kind of situation. > > True, Aldo, but the interesting thing is that we're seeing very > inconsistent data. The LV is running on /dev/sda2, but the status info > show stuff as being on /dev/sdb2. For example, vgreduce says that /dev/sdb2 > isn't part of the VG, while vgdisplay says it is. lvdisplay > shows extents on /dev/sdb2 as being in use when, in fact, they aren't. And that's why I thought that the UUID would be of good use here. I noticed that the OP has two VGs with the same name and two LVs in each VG with the same names as well; and that's why pvremove could yield unpleasant results. Do you think that hard drive cable arrangement has anything to do with how the drives are seen in this case? Frank has not indicated whether he's using PATA or SATA drives. > My brain is starting to hurt. No kidding. ~af -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Aldo Foot wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Rick Stevens wrote: Frank Cox wrote: On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:07:28 -0700 Rick Stevens wrote: We have a serious conflict here. The df command shows you as on sda, but LVM is reporting sdb. My gut reaction is to have you do a: vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 and see if it would be successful. If so, then remove the "--test" and cross your fingers. [r...@mutt temp]# vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 Test mode: Metadata will NOT be updated. Physical Volume "/dev/sdb2" not found in Volume Group "VolGroup00" This is consistent with the fact that the "active" Volume Group that I'm using is not on /dev/sdb2. It's just the "lvdisplay -vm" command that shows it as being in use. This is truly screwey. The pvscan shows sdb2 as part of VolGroup00, lvdisplay shows the partition as in use, but vgreduce says sdb2 isn't part of the VG. Hoo, boy. Frank, this is potentially dangerous, but you can try # pvremove /dev/sdb2 to wipe out sdb2's PV status. Since you seem to be running on /dev/sda and vgreduce claims that /dev/sdb2 isn't part of the active VG, you should be able to do this without blowing things up. Damn this makes me nervous! The pvremove man page does say whether the UUID can be used to remove a PV. Using the UUID would've come very handy in this kind of situation. True, Aldo, but the interesting thing is that we're seeing very inconsistent data. The LV is running on /dev/sda2, but the status info show stuff as being on /dev/sdb2. For example, vgreduce says that /dev/sdb2 isn't part of the VG, while vgdisplay says it is. lvdisplay shows extents on /dev/sdb2 as being in use when, in fact, they aren't. My brain is starting to hurt. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ri...@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2 - -- -Do you know where _your_ towel is? - -- -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Rick Stevens wrote: > Frank Cox wrote: >> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:07:28 -0700 >> Rick Stevens wrote: >> >>> We have a serious conflict here. The df command shows you as on sda, >>> but LVM is reporting sdb. My gut reaction is to have you do a: >>> >>> vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 >>> >>> and see if it would be successful. If so, then remove the "--test" and >>> cross your fingers. >> >> [r...@mutt temp]# vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 >> Test mode: Metadata will NOT be updated. >> Physical Volume "/dev/sdb2" not found in Volume Group "VolGroup00" >> >> This is consistent with the fact that the "active" Volume Group that I'm >> using >> is not on /dev/sdb2. It's just the "lvdisplay -vm" command that shows it >> as >> being in use. > > This is truly screwey. The pvscan shows sdb2 as part of VolGroup00, > lvdisplay shows the partition as in use, but vgreduce says sdb2 isn't > part of the VG. Hoo, boy. > > Frank, this is potentially dangerous, but you can try > > # pvremove /dev/sdb2 > > to wipe out sdb2's PV status. Since you seem to be running on /dev/sda > and vgreduce claims that /dev/sdb2 isn't part of the active VG, you > should be able to do this without blowing things up. > > Damn this makes me nervous! The pvremove man page does say whether the UUID can be used to remove a PV. Using the UUID would've come very handy in this kind of situation. ~af -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:47:53 + Bill Crawford wrote: > Could someone post the output of lvdisplay --maps and of pvdisplay --maps ? [r...@mutt ~]# lvdisplay --maps --- Logical volume --- LV Name/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 VG NameVolGroup00 LV UUIDyFemKc-s2bo-zZC0-cc7q-50By-4jQM-G1MsQr LV Write Accessread/write LV Status available # open 1 LV Size277.28 GB Current LE 8873 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 253:0 --- Segments --- Logical extent 0 to 8872: Typelinear Physical volume /dev/sdb2 Physical extents0 to 8872 --- Logical volume --- LV Name/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 VG NameVolGroup00 LV UUID6UuO4G-X2dI-LirG-HvVF-zLfz-hrYW-NYZEdN LV Write Accessread/write LV Status available # open 1 LV Size1.94 GB Current LE 62 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 253:1 --- Segments --- Logical extent 0 to 61: Typelinear Physical volume /dev/sdb2 Physical extents8873 to 8934 [r...@mutt ~]# pvdisplay --maps --- Physical volume --- PV Name /dev/sdb2 VG Name VolGroup00 PV Size 279.27 GB / not usable 17.55 MB Allocatable yes PE Size (KByte) 32768 Total PE 8936 Free PE 1 Allocated PE 8935 PV UUID SW3Qdy-7qcu-0Th1-Rb2Z-ui24-14ab-qRpMoq --- Physical Segments --- Physical extent 0 to 8872: Logical volume /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 Logical extents 0 to 8872 Physical extent 8873 to 8934: Logical volume /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 Logical extents 0 to 61 Physical extent 8935 to 8935: FREE --- Physical volume --- PV Name /dev/sda2 VG Name VolGroup00 PV Size 465.57 GB / not usable 5.43 MB Allocatable yes PE Size (KByte) 32768 Total PE 14898 Free PE 1 Allocated PE 14897 PV UUID 1dl8EY-s2Qe-W50Y-wU8V-nCRJ-5Upz-SEkJgp --- Physical Segments --- Physical extent 0 to 14834: Logical volume /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 Logical extents 0 to 14834 Physical extent 14835 to 14896: Logical volume /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 Logical extents 0 to 61 Physical extent 14897 to 14897: FREE -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Rick Stevens wrote: > This is truly screwey. The pvscan shows sdb2 as part of VolGroup00, > lvdisplay shows the partition as in use, but vgreduce says sdb2 isn't > part of the VG. Hoo, boy. > > Frank, this is potentially dangerous, but you can try > > # pvremove /dev/sdb2 > > to wipe out sdb2's PV status. Since you seem to be running on /dev/sda > and vgreduce claims that /dev/sdb2 isn't part of the active VG, you > should be able to do this without blowing things up. > > Damn this makes me nervous! > -- Time to dust out that vodoo doll :-) ~af -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Thursday 19 March 2009 17:17:43 Rick Stevens wrote: > This is truly screwey. The pvscan shows sdb2 as part of VolGroup00, > lvdisplay shows the partition as in use, but vgreduce says sdb2 isn't > part of the VG. Hoo, boy. Could someone post the output of lvdisplay --maps and of pvdisplay --maps ? -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Frank Cox wrote: On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:07:28 -0700 Rick Stevens wrote: We have a serious conflict here. The df command shows you as on sda, but LVM is reporting sdb. My gut reaction is to have you do a: vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 and see if it would be successful. If so, then remove the "--test" and cross your fingers. [r...@mutt temp]# vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 Test mode: Metadata will NOT be updated. Physical Volume "/dev/sdb2" not found in Volume Group "VolGroup00" This is consistent with the fact that the "active" Volume Group that I'm using is not on /dev/sdb2. It's just the "lvdisplay -vm" command that shows it as being in use. This is truly screwey. The pvscan shows sdb2 as part of VolGroup00, lvdisplay shows the partition as in use, but vgreduce says sdb2 isn't part of the VG. Hoo, boy. Frank, this is potentially dangerous, but you can try # pvremove /dev/sdb2 to wipe out sdb2's PV status. Since you seem to be running on /dev/sda and vgreduce claims that /dev/sdb2 isn't part of the active VG, you should be able to do this without blowing things up. Damn this makes me nervous! -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ri...@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - Cuteness can be overcome through sufficient bastardry - - --Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes - -- -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote: > Frank Cox wrote: >> >> It looks like the machine can see the second drive and the lvm that's on >> it >> /dev/sdb2, but it has the same VolGroup name as /dev/sda2. > > Yes, this is common and annoying. Here is the guide that I followed when it > happened to me: > > http://www.whoopis.com/howtos/linux_lvm_recovery.html > > I filed bug 461682 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461682), > requesting that the default volume names not be so generic - they now > incorporate the hostname, so this problem should be much less common in > F11+. > > - Mike ___ The instructions from the link do work. The one thing I would add is that when you try to rename the VG, it may complain of active volumes in it and bail out. I did this exercise: rename my *system* disk's VG from VG00 to KEPLER. This is done entirely within the LiveCD environment. The VG name is arbitrary, name it anything you prefer. In my system disk I have a separate /boot and a VG with /, swap, /var, /usr, /usr/local, /tmp and /home. **Boot with a LiveCD You cannot change the VG name on a running system disk. Trying to rename the VG when LVs are still active, results in an error saying that there are active LVs in the VG. Do "lvs" --notice that one of the LV Attributes (Attr) is "a" for active. **Turn off the swap partition The LiveCD mounts the swap image and doesn't let go of it. # swapoff -a # lvchange -an /dev/VG00/swapLV (type in your own device name) **Deactivate all LVs The LV name is whatever name is under the LV column. # lvchange -an /dev/VG00/http://www.whoopis.com/howtos/linux_lvm_recovery.html -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Thursday 19 March 2009 12:10:25 Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote: ... > I filed bug 461682 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461682), > requesting that the default volume names not be so generic - they now > incorporate the hostname, so this problem should be much less common in > F11+. It should possibly include a reference to the distro you're installing, else the test install of the next release I do in a separate partition ends up still with the same volume group name. I've manually called mine by the release here (and my rawhide install is actually just a real partition, now, it seemed less painful in the long run :o)). -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Frank Cox wrote: It looks like the machine can see the second drive and the lvm that's on it /dev/sdb2, but it has the same VolGroup name as /dev/sda2. Yes, this is common and annoying. Here is the guide that I followed when it happened to me: http://www.whoopis.com/howtos/linux_lvm_recovery.html I filed bug 461682 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461682), requesting that the default volume names not be so generic - they now incorporate the hostname, so this problem should be much less common in F11+. - Mike -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Frank Cox wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:43:44 -0700 > Aldo Foot wrote: > >> Rename the VG on the sdb2 to something else other than VolGroup00. >> >> vgrename VolGroup00 > > Both of the VG's are named "VolGroup00". There doesn't appear to be a way to > tell it to rename the VG on sdb2 and I don't know what it would rename if I > issued the command above. Perhaps the VG that I'm using on sda2? Perhaps > both > of the VG's? Or something even more interesting > Do the two VG's have the same UUID? If not, you can use the UUID as part of the vgrename command. From the vgrename man page: "vgrename Zvlifi-Ep3t-e0Ng-U42h-o0ye-KHu1-nl7Ns4 VolGroup00_tmp" Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:43:44 -0700 Aldo Foot wrote: > Rename the VG on the sdb2 to something else other than VolGroup00. > > vgrename VolGroup00 Both of the VG's are named "VolGroup00". There doesn't appear to be a way to tell it to rename the VG on sdb2 and I don't know what it would rename if I issued the command above. Perhaps the VG that I'm using on sda2? Perhaps both of the VG's? Or something even more interesting -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Frank Cox wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:07:28 -0700 > Rick Stevens wrote: > >> We have a serious conflict here. The df command shows you as on sda, >> but LVM is reporting sdb. My gut reaction is to have you do a: >> >> vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 >> >> and see if it would be successful. If so, then remove the "--test" and >> cross your fingers. > > [r...@mutt temp]# vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 > Test mode: Metadata will NOT be updated. > Physical Volume "/dev/sdb2" not found in Volume Group "VolGroup00" > > This is consistent with the fact that the "active" Volume Group that I'm using > is not on /dev/sdb2. It's just the "lvdisplay -vm" command that shows it as > being in use. > > -- > MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@redhat.com > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines > Perhaps this could be the solution: do "man vgrename" Rename the VG on the sdb2 to something else other than VolGroup00. vgrename VolGroup00 The idea is to take out the name duplicity out of the equation. Also in your third post I noticed that there is continuity in the Physical Extents as if both LVs (LogVol00 and LogVol01) are in the same VG. First LogVol00 goes from "0 to 8872", then LogVol01 goes from "8873 to 8934". This shows that both seem to be in the same "disk space" sort of speak. But both LogVol00 and LogVol01 are different as shown by the different UUID. Also the LogVol01 is quite small --about 1.9GB. ~af -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:07:28 -0700 Rick Stevens wrote: > We have a serious conflict here. The df command shows you as on sda, > but LVM is reporting sdb. My gut reaction is to have you do a: > > vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 > > and see if it would be successful. If so, then remove the "--test" and > cross your fingers. [r...@mutt temp]# vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 Test mode: Metadata will NOT be updated. Physical Volume "/dev/sdb2" not found in Volume Group "VolGroup00" This is consistent with the fact that the "active" Volume Group that I'm using is not on /dev/sdb2. It's just the "lvdisplay -vm" command that shows it as being in use. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Frank Cox wrote: On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Dean S. Messing wrote: Regarding the actual problem the OP seems to have, it seems to me (not being an LVM expert) from his output that he has a Volume Group (00) that spans sda2 and sdb2, two LVs that are defined in the VG, both of which sit on sdb2, but no LV defined on sda2. Is this unusual? I actually have two Volume Group 00's, one on each of sda2 and sdb2. sda2 is "live" in that it's the one that I'm using right this minute. sdb2 is somehow both present and not present, depending on how you look at it, but it doesn't appear to be accessible in its current form. I'm considering using fdisk to remove the partitions on it and re-create something "from new" but I'm not entirely sure how wise that would be, or exactly what I should create on there. Another approach would be to just forget it and leave everything as-is until such time as I reformat and reinstall Fedora on this box (if that ever happens) at which time I think the installer would automatically do its thing and create a volume that occupies both hard drives. After all, everything is working and this extra drive is neither helping or hurting my activities. But it seems to me that a logical volume, by its nature, should be easily expandable without taking drastic measures. I'm being very hesitant here, Frank, as I don't want your system to go completely bonkers. We have a serious conflict here. The df command shows you as on sda, but LVM is reporting sdb. My gut reaction is to have you do a: vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 and see if it would be successful. If so, then remove the "--test" and cross your fingers. It may be possible do some testing in rescue mode. Boot off a DVD to rescue mode and do NOT let the system mount your volumes. From the command prompt, run "lvm". From the lvm prompt, try lvm> vgreduce VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 lvm> exit Exit from rescue mode and try to boot from the hard drive. If it comes up, then a "pvscan" should show that /dev/sdb2 does not belong to any VG and you should be fine. If it doesn't boot, bring it back up in rescue mode and: # lvm lvm> vgextend VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 lvm> exit # exit And you're back where you were. -- -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ri...@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - LOOK OUT!!! BEHIND YOU!!! - -- -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Slip of the brain: > Well, being a researcher, I'd not do this, but rather figure out > exactly what's causing the funning remapping. But you may not be the ^^^ funny > curious type. :-) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Frank Cox wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:24:12 -0700 (PDT) > Dean S. Messing wrote: > > > Regarding the actual problem the OP seems to have, it seems to me (not > > being an LVM expert) from his output that he has a Volume Group (00) > > that spans sda2 and sdb2, two LVs that are defined in the VG, both of > > which sit on sdb2, but no LV defined on sda2. Is this unusual? > > I actually have two Volume Group 00's, one on each of sda2 and sdb2. >From your earlier posted output that was not clear to me (but, again, I'm not an expert). On my F10 system, which LV organisation I hand configured after installing non-lvm on an outboard disk (because I wanted to do stuff I didn't know how to make anaconda do), I have: [r...@neuron ~]# pvscan PV /dev/sdb3 VG vg01 lvm2 [148.17 GB / 0free] PV /dev/sdc3 VG vg01 lvm2 [148.17 GB / 0free] PV /dev/sda2 VG vg00 lvm2 [73.77 GB / 64.00 GB free] Total: 3 [370.11 GB] / in use: 3 [370.11 GB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] [r...@neuron ~]# vgscan Reading all physical volumes. This may take a while... Found volume group "vg01" using metadata type lvm2 Found volume group "vg00" using metadata type lvm2 [r...@neuron ~]# lvscan ACTIVE'/dev/vg01/lv00' [117.19 GB] inherit ACTIVE'/dev/vg01/lv01' [19.53 GB] inherit ACTIVE'/dev/vg01/lv02' [19.53 GB] inherit ACTIVE'/dev/vg01/lv03' [140.09 GB] inherit ACTIVE'/dev/vg00/lv00' [9.77 GB] inherit >From my pvscan output, one might say that I have two vg01 volume groups. In fact, I have one vg01 VG spanning sdb3 and sdc3 (both of which of identical size on identical disks---I'm running interleaved Logical Extents---similar to RAID 0. The reason I said I thought you might have a misunderstanding is because of this statement from an earlier post of yours: : I don't know if this comes back to the fact that the volume names on both sda2 : and sdb2 are the same, so it's only showing me the first (or last) one that it : finds? I took "same volume names" as "same logical volume names" and assumed you were confusing LVs and VGs since I have not seen anything indicating that the actual LV names were the same. But you may have just typed "volume group" as "volume". Haveing said all this, I understand you _do_ still have a problem: > sda2 is "live" in that it's the one that I'm using right this minute. I may have missed it but is sda the drive that's been on the current machine all along? Has it been 465 GB all along? I ask this because I have a machine running F6 that somehow swaps the names sda and sdb. In fstab the "sdb" disk (according to df) is listed as "sda". It's running a hardware (non-fake) RAID, though, so it is not the same situation as yours. > sdb2 is somehow both present and not present, depending on how you > look at it, Your comment also seems to apply to sda2 since it is present in the df output but not in the "lvdisplay -vm" output. > but it doesn't appear to be accessible in its current > form. I'm considering using fdisk to remove the partitions on it and > re-create something "from new" but I'm not entirely sure how wise that > would be, or exactly what I should create on there. Well, being a researcher, I'd not do this, but rather figure out exactly what's causing the funning remapping. But you may not be the curious type. :-) > Another approach would be to just forget it and leave everything as-is until > such time as I reformat and reinstall Fedora on this box (if that ever > happens) > at which time I think the installer would automatically do its thing and > create > a volume that occupies both hard drives. After all, everything is working > and this extra drive is neither helping or hurting my activities. But it > seems > to me that a logical volume, by its nature, should be easily expandable > without > taking drastic measures. Maybe you said this already, but what does the machine report (`lvdisplay -vm' and `vgdisplay -v' in particular), if you remove the added drive (sdb?). Dean -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Dean S. Messing wrote: > Regarding the actual problem the OP seems to have, it seems to me (not > being an LVM expert) from his output that he has a Volume Group (00) > that spans sda2 and sdb2, two LVs that are defined in the VG, both of > which sit on sdb2, but no LV defined on sda2. Is this unusual? I actually have two Volume Group 00's, one on each of sda2 and sdb2. sda2 is "live" in that it's the one that I'm using right this minute. sdb2 is somehow both present and not present, depending on how you look at it, but it doesn't appear to be accessible in its current form. I'm considering using fdisk to remove the partitions on it and re-create something "from new" but I'm not entirely sure how wise that would be, or exactly what I should create on there. Another approach would be to just forget it and leave everything as-is until such time as I reformat and reinstall Fedora on this box (if that ever happens) at which time I think the installer would automatically do its thing and create a volume that occupies both hard drives. After all, everything is working and this extra drive is neither helping or hurting my activities. But it seems to me that a logical volume, by its nature, should be easily expandable without taking drastic measures. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:43:26 -0700 Rick Stevens wrote: > >Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System > > /dev/sdb1 * 1 25 200781 83 Linux > > /dev/sdb2 26 36481 292832820 8e Linux LVM > > Ah, HAH! Ok, do you want to run off the 300GB drive or the 500GB drive > when you're all done? What this is showing us now is that the LVM > that's being run now is on the 300GB drive and that is indeed /dev/sdb, > so the "lvdisplay -vm" DOES reflect reality at the moment. Except that the lvm that's being run now is NOT on sdb. Observe: [frank...@mutt ~]$ df -h FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 450G 192G 235G 45% / /dev/sda1 190M 22M 159M 13% /boot tmpfs 2.0G 476K 2.0G 1% /dev/shm As you can see, there's a difference between what's being reported and what's actually being used. sda seems to be "lost" but it's the one that's in use. Since all of my "stuff" is currently on the 500gb drive, and it's what I'm using right now, I would like to either keep it as-is and set up a new volume that I can actually use on sdb or extend my currently in-use volume to use the space on sdb as well. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Dean S. Messing wrote: > > Rick Stevens wrote: > >> Perhaps we should take this off-list--I don't know that we want to >> occupy the list's bandwidth with the back-and-forth of geting this >> sorted. When it's fixed, we could post a summary on what we did for >> those who are interested. > > I, for one, would like you to _leave it on the list_ as I am following > and learning. With all the, um, "philosophical discussions" that > spend bandwidth, it is actually refreshing to see the list being used > for "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using > Fedora." Rick offered to post a summary afterwards. This LVM stuff can get tricky and there could be a lot of posting back and forth. > Regarding the actual problem the OP seems to have, it seems to me (not > being an LVM expert) from his output that he has a Volume Group (00) > that spans sda2 and sdb2, two LVs that are defined in the VG, both of > which sit on sdb2, but no LV defined on sda2. Is this unusual? The OP has not added the second drive to the original VG. That's why he has to clearly identify which disk belongs where. > There also seems to be some confusion between "Volume Group" and > "Volume" (ie. LV), which is the root of some misunderstanding on the > OP's part. Well, to clarify: a Volume Group (VG) is just available space made up of one or more partitions. Each partition is known as a Physical Volume (PV). You can create Logical Volumes (LV) in a VG. The LVs are not aware of disk partitions, they only know of Physical Extents (PE). > Again, I may be all wet on this but that's what his output and > comments indicate to me. > > Dean -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Frank Cox wrote: > At this point, since the second hard drive seems to be in good condition, I > think I would like to re-format it and either add it to the existing volume on > sda2 to make one big logical drive, or just reformat it and make a second lvm > on it again and add it my directory tree. Which approach would be better? > And > how do I extend a lvm to cover both drives if that's what I end up doing? How to use the disk is a matter of personal choice. Using the second drive separately is simpler. You could create a Volume Group (VG) using up the entire drive and create one or more Logical Volumes (LV) in it. If you want to add disk space to the first drive, then make the entire second drive a Physical Volume (PV) and add it to the VG in the first drive. Adding a second drive to a an existing VG it's OK, but if the hard drive fail it can get complicated, make sure to have a backup of /etc/lvm. general to use that second drive would be: (a) use pvcreate to mark a disk or partition of disk as PV, use pvs to display results. (b) use vgcreate to create a VG, use vgs to display results (c) use lvcreate to create LVs in the VG, use lvs to display results (d) create a filesystem in the LV. (e) mount the LV. To add a partition (PV) to an existing volume use "vgextend myVG /dev/sda10" to add /dev/sda10 to myVG. ~af -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Rick Stevens wrote: > Perhaps we should take this off-list--I don't know that we want to > occupy the list's bandwidth with the back-and-forth of geting this > sorted. When it's fixed, we could post a summary on what we did for > those who are interested. I, for one, would like you to _leave it on the list_ as I am following and learning. With all the, um, "philosophical discussions" that spend bandwidth, it is actually refreshing to see the list being used for "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora." Regarding the actual problem the OP seems to have, it seems to me (not being an LVM expert) from his output that he has a Volume Group (00) that spans sda2 and sdb2, two LVs that are defined in the VG, both of which sit on sdb2, but no LV defined on sda2. Is this unusual? There also seems to be some confusion between "Volume Group" and "Volume" (ie. LV), which is the root of some misunderstanding on the OP's part. Again, I may be all wet on this but that's what his output and comments indicate to me. Dean -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Frank Cox wrote: On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:17:13 -0700 Rick Stevens wrote: Now, back to your question. If you REALLY want to put /dev/sdb2 into a new volume group, first make sure none of its space is being used in existing LVs (check the output of "lvdisplay -vm"). If it's being used, you'll have to first shrink all the filesystems on the LV to clear the space, then shrink the LV itself using "lvreduce" and specifying the number of extents that are on /dev/sdb2. I don't understand what lvdisplay -vm is telling me. QUOTE: [r...@mutt ~]# lvdisplay -vm Finding all logical volumes --- Logical volume --- LV Name/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 VG NameVolGroup00 LV UUIDyFemKc-s2bo-zZC0-cc7q-50By-4jQM-G1MsQr LV Write Accessread/write LV Status available # open 1 LV Size277.28 GB Current LE 8873 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 253:0 --- Segments --- Logical extent 0 to 8872: Typelinear Physical volume /dev/sdb2 Physical extents0 to 8872 --- Logical volume --- LV Name/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 VG NameVolGroup00 LV UUID6UuO4G-X2dI-LirG-HvVF-zLfz-hrYW-NYZEdN LV Write Accessread/write LV Status available # open 1 LV Size1.94 GB Current LE 62 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 253:1 --- Segments --- Logical extent 0 to 61: Typelinear Physical volume /dev/sdb2 Physical extents8873 to 8934 END OF QUOTE Notice that it's telling me about sdb2 and says nothing about sda2, which is where my actual "in use" volume is located. Yeah, that is curious. It sure looks like it picked up the correct LV sizes, but the mapping is displaying incorrectly. When I mentioned making sure none of /dev/sdb2 was being used, I was referring to the "Segments" sections. If an LV spreads across multiple PVs, this is where it'll be shown. The fact you caught this indicates to me that you actually understand it better than you think! :-) [r...@mutt ~]# pvscan PV /dev/sdb2 VG VolGroup00 lvm2 [279.25 GB / 32.00 MB free] PV /dev/sda2 VG VolGroup00 lvm2 [465.56 GB / 32.00 MB free] Total: 2 [744.81 GB] / in use: 2 [744.81 GB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] lvdisplay doesn't appear to see sda2. I don't know if this comes back to the fact that the volume names on both sda2 and sdb2 are the same, so it's only showing me the first (or last) one that it finds? Uh, I don't think so. Read my comments below. I'm wondering if I would be best off to use fdisk to nuke the thing and carry on from there: [r...@mutt ~]# fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x5d7711f1 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 25 200781 83 Linux /dev/sda2 26 60801 488183220 8e Linux LVM Disk /dev/sdb: 300.0 GB, 300069052416 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 36481 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00041fa1 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 1 25 200781 83 Linux /dev/sdb2 26 36481 292832820 8e Linux LVM Ah, HAH! Ok, do you want to run off the 300GB drive or the 500GB drive when you're all done? What this is showing us now is that the LVM that's being run now is on the 300GB drive and that is indeed /dev/sdb, so the "lvdisplay -vm" DOES reflect reality at the moment. Ok, so, here's what I need to know to help you sort this out: 1. Which drive do you want to be active, the 300GB or 500GB? 2. What kind of interface the drives are (IDE, SATA, SCSI)? 3. What are the drive assignments (if IDE, which is master, which is slave, are either or both in "cable select" mode; if SCSI, which IDs do they occupy, etc.) Perhaps we should take this off-list--I don't know that we want to occupy the list's bandwidth with the back-and-forth of geting this sorted. When it's fixed, we could post a summary on what we did for those who are interested. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ri...@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:17:13 -0700 Rick Stevens wrote: > Now, back to your question. If you REALLY want to put /dev/sdb2 into a > new volume group, first make sure none of its space is being used in > existing LVs (check the output of "lvdisplay -vm"). If it's being used, > you'll have to first shrink all the filesystems on the LV to clear the > space, then shrink the LV itself using "lvreduce" and specifying the > number of extents that are on /dev/sdb2. I don't understand what lvdisplay -vm is telling me. QUOTE: [r...@mutt ~]# lvdisplay -vm Finding all logical volumes --- Logical volume --- LV Name/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 VG NameVolGroup00 LV UUIDyFemKc-s2bo-zZC0-cc7q-50By-4jQM-G1MsQr LV Write Accessread/write LV Status available # open 1 LV Size277.28 GB Current LE 8873 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 253:0 --- Segments --- Logical extent 0 to 8872: Typelinear Physical volume /dev/sdb2 Physical extents0 to 8872 --- Logical volume --- LV Name/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 VG NameVolGroup00 LV UUID6UuO4G-X2dI-LirG-HvVF-zLfz-hrYW-NYZEdN LV Write Accessread/write LV Status available # open 1 LV Size1.94 GB Current LE 62 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 253:1 --- Segments --- Logical extent 0 to 61: Typelinear Physical volume /dev/sdb2 Physical extents8873 to 8934 END OF QUOTE Notice that it's telling me about sdb2 and says nothing about sda2, which is where my actual "in use" volume is located. [r...@mutt ~]# pvscan PV /dev/sdb2 VG VolGroup00 lvm2 [279.25 GB / 32.00 MB free] PV /dev/sda2 VG VolGroup00 lvm2 [465.56 GB / 32.00 MB free] Total: 2 [744.81 GB] / in use: 2 [744.81 GB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] lvdisplay doesn't appear to see sda2. I don't know if this comes back to the fact that the volume names on both sda2 and sdb2 are the same, so it's only showing me the first (or last) one that it finds? I'm wondering if I would be best off to use fdisk to nuke the thing and carry on from there: [r...@mutt ~]# fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x5d7711f1 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 25 200781 83 Linux /dev/sda2 26 60801 488183220 8e Linux LVM Disk /dev/sdb: 300.0 GB, 300069052416 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 36481 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00041fa1 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 1 25 200781 83 Linux /dev/sdb2 26 36481 292832820 8e Linux LVM > > In your case it'll probably be free so you can simply remove it from > VolGroup00: > > # vgreduce VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2 > > Then you can create a new VG and specify /dev/sdb2 as the first PV in > the group: > > # vgcreate VolGroup01 /dev/sdb2 -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Frank Cox wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:45:28 -0700
Aldo Foot wrote:
Get info on the Volume Group (change 00 to 01 for the other volume)
That's the part that everyone jumps right over. How do you change the volume
name on the second volume when both volumes have the same name? I have not
found a way to specify "rename the volume on sdb2" or anything similar to that.
Well, don't worry about the volume group (VG) so much. Yes, /dev/sdb2
is in VolGroup00, but it's probably not being used by any logical
volumes (LVs), but you should confirm with "lvdisplay -v". If you were
to grow any LVs in that VG (or create a new LV), THEN space on /dev/sdb2
would probably get used.
Remember, a volume group is simply a collection of PVs (physical
volumes). When you create a logical volume (LV) in some VG, that volume
is created by utilizing free extents from the various PVs in the VG you
specify.
A good example of utilizing this is if you have a mix of drive types in
your system (e.g. SATA and SCSI). You may create a VG containing all of
the SATA drives (perhaps called "SATA_VG") and different one from the
SCSI drives ("SCSI_VG"). Then, if you need a high-performance LV, you'd
create it from the "SCSI_VG" group:
# lvcreate -L 8G -n DB_Vol SCSI_VG
would create an 8GB volume called "DB_Vol" from SCSI drives ONLY. For
something not so fast, you could create it from the "SATA_VG" group.
Now, back to your question. If you REALLY want to put /dev/sdb2 into a
new volume group, first make sure none of its space is being used in
existing LVs (check the output of "lvdisplay -vm"). If it's being used,
you'll have to first shrink all the filesystems on the LV to clear the
space, then shrink the LV itself using "lvreduce" and specifying the
number of extents that are on /dev/sdb2.
In your case it'll probably be free so you can simply remove it from
VolGroup00:
# vgreduce VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2
Then you can create a new VG and specify /dev/sdb2 as the first PV in
the group:
# vgcreate VolGroup01 /dev/sdb2
Voila! As m' tutor once said, "QED" (quite easily done).
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ri...@nerd.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
- I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere, but -
- probably not recoverable.-
--
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 12:26 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: > At this point, since the second hard drive seems to be in good condition, I > think I would like to re-format it and either add it to the existing volume on > sda2 to make one big logical drive, or just reformat it and make a second lvm > on it again and add it my directory tree. Which approach would be better? > And > how do I extend a lvm to cover both drives if that's what I end up doing? I would personally avoid having LVs that span both drives unless you have a good backup strategy in place. Unless the underlying storage provides some level of redundancy you're pretty much guaranteeing that one day one of the two disks will fail and you'll be left with a messy recovery scenario. Regards, Bryn. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 12:26 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: > At this point, since the second hard drive seems to be in good condition, I > think I would like to re-format it and either add it to the existing volume on > sda2 to make one big logical drive, or just reformat it and make a second lvm > on it again and add it my directory tree. Which approach would be better? > And > how do I extend a lvm to cover both drives if that's what I end up doing? Probably most flexible to add the 2nd drive to the existing VG. Use pvcreate to set up the partition(s) as PVs, then use vgextend to add them to the VG. You can then use lvcreate and/or lvextend to create new LVs or extend existing LVs as you see fit. -Chris -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:45:28 -0700 Aldo Foot wrote: > Get info on the Volume Group (change 00 to 01 for the other volume) That's the part that everyone jumps right over. How do you change the volume name on the second volume when both volumes have the same name? I have not found a way to specify "rename the volume on sdb2" or anything similar to that. This issue is now moot for the moment. I decided that the path of least-likely screw-up would be to simply disconnect the "main" hard drive in this computer and attempt to boot off of the drive that I took out of the other one. This actually worked and, after running fsck for a couple of hours, everything seemed to work well enough to copy the data over to the new computer that I got to replace the one that the hard drive came out of. Now that the job has been completed, I re-connected the "main" hard drive in this machine again and I'm now back to the same setup that I had when I wrote the original inquiry: [r...@mutt ~]# pvscan PV /dev/sdb2 VG VolGroup00 lvm2 [279.25 GB / 32.00 MB free] PV /dev/sda2 VG VolGroup00 lvm2 [465.56 GB / 32.00 MB free] Total: 2 [744.81 GB] / in use: 2 [744.81 GB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] At this point, since the second hard drive seems to be in good condition, I think I would like to re-format it and either add it to the existing volume on sda2 to make one big logical drive, or just reformat it and make a second lvm on it again and add it my directory tree. Which approach would be better? And how do I extend a lvm to cover both drives if that's what I end up doing? -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: copying lvm with the same name
Aldo Foot venit, vidit, dixit 17.03.2009 18:45: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Frank Cox wrote: >> One of my computers died and, of course, there is un-backed-up data on there >> that I want to recover if I can. The hard drive seems to be in good shape >> so I >> took it out of the dead box and installed it on this computer (my main >> desktop >> machine.) >> >> I have been doing a bunch of reading about logical volumes and some of what >> I've found is self-contradictory, incomplete and stuff that I just don't >> really understand (yet.) And, as you can imagine, since this is my main >> desktop machine I'm not terribly anxious to just start playing around with >> the lvm configuration without knowing what I'm doing. >> >> Here are my findings so far: >> >> [r...@mutt ~]# pvscan >> PV /dev/sdb2 VG VolGroup00 lvm2 [279.25 GB / 32.00 MB free] >> PV /dev/sda2 VG VolGroup00 lvm2 [465.56 GB / 32.00 MB free] >> Total: 2 [744.81 GB] / in use: 2 [744.81 GB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] >> [r...@mutt ~]# lvscan >> ACTIVE'/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00' [277.28 GB] inherit >> ACTIVE'/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01' [1.94 GB] inherit >> >> It looks like the machine can see the second drive and the lvm that's on it >> /dev/sdb2, but it has the same VolGroup name as /dev/sda2. >> >> What I would like to do is twofold: First, and most importantly, I would >> like >> to mount it as-is so I can copy my data off of there. Second, I would like >> to >> re-format it and add it to the storage capacity that I already have on this >> machine. Heck, if it's still a good drive I might as well put it to use. >> >> So, how can I mount VolGroup00 that's on /dev/sdb2? The vgchange command >> followed by a simple mount command looks like what I want to do, but what's >> the >> syntax? As I said, I really don't want to bugger up my primary hard >> drive >> >> -- >> MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com > __ > > Get info on the Volume Group (change 00 to 01 for the other volume) > vgdisplay -v VolGroup00 > > Look at the Physical Volumes list; the hard drive partitions > are shown individually. That's how you identify with hard > drive or partition belongs to what Volume Group. > Somewhere in the Logical Volume info it will say: > "LV Status available" > > To fix inconsistencies, check the filesystem > e2fsck -fvy /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 > > To format (make sure to pick the correct one) > mkfs.ext3 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 > > mount as any other filesystem >mount /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 /mnt/mountpoint > > Bottom line is you can use /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 as you > would any hard drive device name such as /dev/hda1. > > HTH, > ~af > The problems is he has multiple groups with the same name. This happens as soon as you go with anaconda's defaults twice... Michael -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
