rote:
> >
> > I misspoke about LVM for Glance/Swift. The backend for the images are on
> > top of a filesystem in the POC clouds. LVM is used for Cinder, the block
> > image store. Ceph is often used to drop in replace LVM for Cinder and
> files
> > for Swift ob
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Tom Buskey <t...@buskey.name> wrote:
>
> I misspoke about LVM for Glance/Swift. The backend for the images are on
> top of a filesystem in the POC clouds. LVM is used for Cinder, the block
> image store. Ceph is often used to drop in repl
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen <roz...@hackerposse.com
> wrote:
> On 09/28/2017 01:46 PM, Tom Buskey wrote:
> > I work with OpenStack. It manages images in Glance which sit above its
> object storage, Swift.
> >
> > On the POC clouds, you can u
On 09/28/2017 02:14 PM, mark wrote:
> AWS/EBS is not LVM under the covers, it's more like NFS; and snapshots are
> more like VMware & how it does snapshots.
I have never used VMWare and have no idea how it does anything. Can you provide
more insight on what that means?
>
AWS/EBS is not LVM under the covers, it's more like NFS; and snapshots are
more like VMware & how it does snapshots. The OS cache exclusion refers to
read-ahead and write caching going on in RAM.
Mark
On Sep 28, 2017 1:17 PM, "Joshua Judson Rosen" <roz...@hackerposse.com>
w
On 09/28/2017 01:32 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> I would say it's unlikely to be LVM, because LVM is content-ignorant; it
> snapshots the entire volume, which is
> inefficient, and when you're Amazon, you care a LOT about being efficient.
> Instead, I imagine they're using some
>
On 09/28/2017 01:48 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
> The lack of coherence due to OS cave not being flushed should still be a
> concern.
In the general case, yes. In my particular case I'm specifically concerned only
with data that's stored transactionally to the extent that (and I really hope
that I'm
On 09/28/2017 01:46 PM, Tom Buskey wrote:
> I work with OpenStack. It manages images in Glance which sit above its
> object storage, Swift.
>
> On the POC clouds, you can use LVM as a backend for Glance. Snapshotting is
> *very* slow. 30 minutes for a snap of a
> 80GB VM th
The lack of coherence due to OS cave not being flushed should still be a
concern.
OTOH I saw a storage level replication system propagate corruption to the
remote site's copy of the Production DBMS ... So it perfectly replicated
the primary's failure. Oops. Easiest recovery was restoring a
I work with OpenStack. It manages images in Glance which sit above its
object storage, Swift.
On the POC clouds, you can use LVM as a backend for Glance. Snapshotting
is *very* slow. 30 minutes for a snap of a 80GB VM that's shutdown.
You can use other storage backends in OpenStack
I would say it's unlikely to be LVM, because LVM is content-ignorant; it
snapshots the entire volume, which is inefficient, and when you're
Amazon, you care a LOT about being efficient. Instead, I imagine
they're using some content-aware CoW solution such as ZFS. But,
whatever mechanism, I
e information I've been able to find about how Amazon's stuff works
>(either in terms
of how it's _implemented_ [for which I'm finding basically no insight] or how
it's _characterized_
[in the engineering sense, not the literary sense]...), it really sounds a
_lot_ like Amazon
is just using LV
When: April 18, 2012 7PM (6:30PM for QA)
Topic: Linux Soup XII.2: LVM Fundamentals and CGroups
Moderators: Christoph Doerbeck, Gordon Keegan
Location: MIT Building E51, Room 335
Summary
Christoph discusses LVM volume management, and Gordon discusses CGroups
for resource management
Abstract
When: April 18, 2012 7PM (6:30PM for QA)
Topic: Linux Soup XII.2: LVM Fundamentals and CGroups
Moderators: Christoph Doerbeck, Gordon Keegan
Location: MIT Building E51, Room 335
Summary
Christoph discusses LVM volume management, and Gordon discusses CGroups
for resource management
Abstract
sound like a broken record, but it also has a very nice interface for
managing all your logical volume needs. That said, it sounds like you
aready resized the LVM and just need to resize the file system. When I do
this for xen LVM partitions, I do this:
- webmin to create/resize LVM as needed
A while back I added a 1TB drive to my mythtv box. My 500GB drive was
about full so I thought I'd lvm the 1TB drive onto the existing. I did
not do it correctly apparently. My system is only reporting the
original 500GB. If, however, I open up the lvm gui I see a Volume Group
00
Bruce Labitt wrote:
A while back I added a 1TB drive to my mythtv box. My 500GB drive was
about full so I thought I'd lvm the 1TB drive onto the existing. I did
not do it correctly apparently. My system is only reporting the
original 500GB. If, however, I open up the lvm gui I see
I've survived fiddling LVM stuff, so I think it is fairly fool-proof.
pvdisplay will show the physical volumes
lvdisplay will show the logical volumes
vgdisplay will show the volume groups
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 20:16 -0400, Bruce Labitt wrote:
A while back I added a 1TB drive to my mythtv box
Frank DiPrete wrote:
Bruce Labitt wrote:
A while back I added a 1TB drive to my mythtv box. My 500GB drive
was about full so I thought I'd lvm the 1TB drive onto the existing.
I did not do it correctly apparently. My system is only reporting
the original 500GB. If, however, I open up
space on your root partition
enjoy
Bruce Labitt wrote:
Frank DiPrete wrote:
Bruce Labitt wrote:
A while back I added a 1TB drive to my mythtv box. My 500GB drive
was about full so I thought I'd lvm the 1TB drive onto the existing.
I did not do it correctly apparently. My system is only
that when doing LVM things
and it threw me off. I figured it was an error of some sort and that I
had to take some other action. Feh.
Well, it was an error of some sort. LVM has no way of knowing what
you have on your devices, and maybe you *did* expect that device to
have something
. I had never seen any message like that when doing LVM things
and it threw me off. I figured it was an error of some sort and that I
had to take some other action. Feh.
Well, it was an error of some sort. LVM has no way of knowing what
you have on your devices, and maybe you
display commands:
Which all seem to indicate that the volume group named VolGroup00
is not working.
You did say this system was running, right?
I'm wondering just how screwed up things are. If what LVM is
reporting is right, there shouldn't be a system to run...
Have you rebooted since
mapped to the damaged PV on sdb, then
restoring the metadata of the damaged PV is what you want.
Try the --partial switch to the various LVM commands. According
to the man page, it will not allow modification of metadata, so it
should be safe. There are also some words in there about re
Dan Coutu wrote:
Note: Red Hat does have some documentation that talks about recovering
LVM metadata although not in exactly the same kind of situation. The
command it mentions is something like this:
pvcreate --uuid FmGRh3-zhok-iVI8-7qTD-S5BI-MAEN-NYM5Sk --restorefile
/etc/lvm/archive
I'm extending an LVM volume in the same way that I did on an almost
identical machine last week. Have an existing RAID array setup on
/dev/sda with /dev/sda1 setup as the boot partition and /dev/sda2 as a
logical volume. Added new RAID drives that show up as /dev/sdb. They
show up on boot
Ben Scott wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 10:45 AM, Dan Coutu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do a pvcreate /dev/sdb and it reports that all
is well. mkfs on /dev/sdb also goes well.
Did you do those in that order? If so, you've likely overwritten
the PV header (written by pvcreate) with a
blown away
the LVM metadata on /dev/sdb and thus messed up that volume group. LVM
still thinks that /dev/sdb is part of the volume group.
I'm not sure how to fix this, but if you're using RHEL, contact Red Hat
support and they may be able to help you.
-Mark
error messages about not finding the signature or
UUID are likely because LVM has copies of the metadata in other
locations. So LVM knows there *should* be a PV there, but can't find
it goes to look. (I know LVM caches metadata under /etc/lvm/, and I
think it also keeps copies of all the metadata
Looks like someone on the fedora forum had something similar happenthey
seemed to be able to recover knowing the UUID of the lost drive and the
file in /etc/lvm
pvcreate -f –uuid Z4lh8H-G0e8-K8q1-4WB6-faac-39hk-b82MWU –restorefile
/etc/lvm/backup/recover /dev/sdb
http://fedoraforum.org/forum
Twelve people attended last night's session of the Seacoast Linux User
Group, a chapter of the Greater New Hampshire Linux User Group, held as
usual on the second Monday of the month at the UNH Durham campus, Morse
Hall room 301.
Ben Scott had presented RAID and LVM and he had lots of information
What : RAID and LVM storage management
Date : Mon 10 Sep 2007 (TONIGHT)
Time : 7 PM to 9 PM
Where: Room 301, Morse Hall, UNH, Durham, NH
For the September 2007 SLUG/Seacoast/UNH/Durham meeting, Ben Scott
will be speaking on storage management using RAID and LVM.
=== About the presentation
What : RAID and LVM storage management
Date : Mon 10 Sep 2007
Time : 7 PM to 9 PM
Where: Room 301, Morse Hall, UNH, Durham, NH
For the September 2007 SLUG/Seacoast/UNH/Durham meeting, Ben Scott
will be speaking on storage management using RAID and LVM.
=== About the presentation ===
RAID
/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.gnhlug.announce
Everyone got to introduce themselves and speak a little bit about what
they're up to. I passed around a couple lists of topics and speakers
from the wiki to find out what the attendees want to see for future
sessions.
Bill Stearns presented LVM: Logical Volume
pf wasn't adopted just because it was Not Invented Here.
Does anyone know if there is a way to non-destructively resize a
Linux LVM PV (Physical Volume)?
Something like pvreduce?
Does such a thing exist? I don't have a command by that name, and
Google only finds thinkos for lvreduce
was ported to
Linux. IPF runs on almost everything else. MacOSX uses IPF.
Does anyone know if there is a way to non-destructively resize a
Linux LVM PV (Physical Volume)?
Something like pvreduce?
forgot joke /joke
Does such a thing exist? I don't have a command by that name, and
Google
On 11/5/06, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been using VMware server for playing with OSes. Solaris works well ...
Hmmm, that's a good thought. I went to all the trouble of setting
up the nifty multi-boot system, and I think it's blinded me. I keep
ignoring virtualization.
On 11/5/06, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been using VMware server for playing with OSes. Solaris works well ...
Hmmm, that's a good thought. I went to all the trouble of setting
up the nifty multi-boot system, and I think it's
On 11/5/06, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who wants a
half-height, 18 GB SCSI drive, these days?
Someone who runs older hardware at home
Yah, I used to do that, too. But when you can get a PATA disk
that's two orders of magnitude larger in capacity, half the size
physically, a
(primaryies, not
secondaries), controllers, fans and a gigabit ethernet card. Throw
Linux in it w/ iSCSI target and RAID-5 and LVM the disks. Or not.
Throw gigabit ethernet in your server and iSCSI initiator. You have a SAN.
The hard part of that is cooling, power and monitoirng. But it works
have lots of respect for them. But I've already
got a T-shirt like that. ;-)
Now, Solaris I haven't really used in just about forever, and the
new free Solaris sounds interesting. Hmmm. That has some appeal to
me.
One problem. When I set-up the disks on my current PC, I used Linux
LVM
Binaries in
a Zone too.
One problem. When I set-up the disks on my current PC, I used Linux
LVM for everything except the Wintendo partition. That lets me do
things like try out three different distros at once, without needing
to do much of anything to make room or reclaim it afterwards. I have
42 matches
Mail list logo
