On 10/17/2017, 4:57:10 PM, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> First off, raid10 is a linux specialty (I didn't know LVM supported it,
> thanks!),
Eh? Not sure what you mean by that, RAID10 is used by many hardware RAID
controllers, so is certainly not some kind of esoteric linux
'specialty', unless I mis
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
thanks!), and is not the same as raid1+0 (raid1 on top of raid0).
Sorry, that is raid0 on top of raid1. With raid1 on top, then after
the first disk failure, the second failure has a 66% chance of
destroying the data. With raid0 on top, the secon
You still haven't said what you are trying to accomplish. I wouldn't
have bothered responding to such a vague question until you provided
some tantalizing clues. Until your lastest clues, I would have advised
using rsync or dd to copy your data to a new volume. But now it sounds
like you ran ou
It looks like you have a permission problem. The sanlock daemon needs to
be able to use /dev/mapper/global-lvmlockd, but in your case it is getting
an EACCES error when it tries to use that device.
Check what UID/GID the sanlock daemon is running as, and that this GID is
allowed to access disks.
Hi!
I just tested lv activation with a degraded raid1 thin pool.
Unfortunately it looks like activation mode=degraded only works for
plain raid1 lvs. If you add a thin pool, lvm won't activate it in
degraded mode. (Unless you specify --activationmode partial, which is
IMHO rather dangerous.)
Is t
On 16/10/17 22:16, John Stoffel wrote:
lejeczek> I'm sroogling and reading but before spend whole day doing
lejeczek> that, I was hoping you guys, gals, done conversion from
lejeczek> raid10?
Please post your configuration and explain what you're trying to do in
more detail.
lejeczek> I'm thi
The command "vgcreate --shared global /dev/sdb2" creates a VG that
eventually is REMOVED with an error:
VG global init failed: invalid parameters for sanlock
Removing global-lvmlock (252:0)
Failed to initialize lock args for lock type sanl
