On Oct 27, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Iain Morris wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
>
> You need to exclude the LVs in the host VG from being scanned for sub-VGs.
> It's actually easier to just list what SHOULD be scanned rather than what
> shouldn't.
>
> Look in /et
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
> You need to exclude the LVs in the host VG from being scanned for sub-VGs.
> It's actually easier to just list what SHOULD be scanned rather than what
> shouldn't.
>
> Look in /etc/lvm/lvm.conf
>
This worked, thanks. A couple of people emai
On Oct 25, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Iain Morris wrote:
> I've been running into a reproducible problem when using default LVM volume
> group names to present block devices for virtual machines in KVM, and I'm
> wondering why it is happening.
>
> On dom0 I make a default VolGroup00 for the operating s
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
> Which block devices are you exporting to your guest? Post the libvirt
> configuration file for it.
See below. It's specifically the second volume group that collides between
virtual and physical systems. Both dom0 and U have identica
On 10/25/2010 12:31 PM, Iain Morris wrote:
> I then build a new virtual machine called sys1, using lv.sys1 for the
> root filesystem, and lv.sys1-data for an independent data partition.
> Everything works great after installation, and vgdisplay on both
> systems looks great.
>
> If I then run vgs
I've been running into a reproducible problem when using default LVM volume
group names to present block devices for virtual machines in KVM, and I'm
wondering why it is happening.
On dom0 I make a default VolGroup00 for the operating system. I make a
second VolGroup01 for logical volumes that wi
6 matches
Mail list logo
