Tim Woodall writes:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Steve Keller wrote:
>
> > I don't see how this can be done in the current Debian 12.
> Not sure because I've previously battled the opposite problem but I'd
> start here in lvm.conf
>
> # Configuration option devices/scan_lvs.
> # Scan
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 11:21:49AM +0200, Steve Keller wrote:
> In older Debian releases, I think at least until Debian 9, it was
> possible to access PVs and LVs which are stored in a LV.
[…]
> I don't see how this can be done in the current Debian 12.
Works fine for me on all versions of
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Steve Keller wrote:
In older Debian releases, I think at least until Debian 9, it was
possible to access PVs and LVs which are stored in a LV. The PV
inside the containing LV could be displayed and activated with
vgdisplay(8) and vgchange(8).
This scenario makes sense if y
It seems that the command /sbin/lvm pvscan --cache --activate ay 9:0 from
the Systemd unit lvm2-pvscan@9:0.service is hanging and blocks all
subsequent lvm activities.
Am Fr., 25. März 2022 um 20:40 Uhr schrieb Reiner Buehl <
reiner.bu...@gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> I am crossgrading my Debian Bust
Hi Andrew,
On 2021-12-28 5:00 p.m., Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 08:55:29AM +1100, David wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 21:06, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>>> Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote on
>>> 28/12/2021 at 07:39:16+0100:
>>
I got two logical volume on my
David wrote on 28/12/2021 at 22:55:29+0100:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 21:06, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote on 28/12/2021
>> at 07:39:16+0100:
>
>> > I got two logical volume on my hard disk.
>> > One is the swap
>> > Other is the root
>> > Both have the s
Hello,
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:00:51PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 08:55:29AM +1100, David wrote:
> > I don't know about Grub asking for passwords, because I don't
> > encrypt boot partitions. But if the question is about the initrd
> > password prompt, then ...
>
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 08:55:29AM +1100, David wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 21:06, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote on
> > 28/12/2021 at 07:39:16+0100:
>
> > > I got two logical volume on my hard disk.
> > > One is the swap
> > > Other is the root
> > >
On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 21:06, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote on 28/12/2021
> at 07:39:16+0100:
> > I got two logical volume on my hard disk.
> > One is the swap
> > Other is the root
> > Both have the same passphrase.
> > How can I make grub ask only once ?
Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote on 28/12/2021 at
07:39:16+0100:
> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 4B5CC29996718046 created at
> 2021-12-28T07:39:16+0100 using RSA]]
> Hi,
> I got two logical volume on my hard disk.
> One is the swap
> Other is the root
> Both have the same passphrase
you can add a key to swap. and place this somewhere in the root
partition. the key must known by /etc/crypttab, so it should ask only once.
Am 28.12.21 um 07:39 schrieb Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside:
> Hi,
> I got two logical volume on my hard disk.
> One is the swap
> Other is the root
> Both h
> vgcreate vg2t /dev/sda /dev/sdb
> lvcreate --type raid0 -name lv-stg --size 16700GiB vg2t
I solved the problem by manually activating it initially.
On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 10:41 PM Tom Dial wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/28/21 12:58, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> >> Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populat
On 5/28/21 12:58, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
>> Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
>
> There is no encrypted volume.
>
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:37 PM john doe wrote:
>>
>> On 5/28/2021 8:31 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
>>> Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg
On Fri, 28 May 2021 21:10:03 +0200
john doe wrote:
> On 5/28/2021 8:58 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> >> Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
> >
> > There is no encrypted volume.
> >
>
> That file (1) needs to be populated for it to work at boot! :)
No, not if (as M. Atmaca has alr
Hi.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 09:31:06PM +0300, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg logs.
>
...
> [Fri May 28 14:14:22 2021] device-mapper: table: 253:2: raid: Failed
> to run raid array
> [Fri May 28 14:14:22 2021] device-mapper: table: 253:
> That file (1) needs to be populated for it to work at boot! :)
thanks, i didn't know. I will check it. :)
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:10 PM john doe wrote:
>
> On 5/28/2021 8:58 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> >> Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
> >
> > There is no encrypted volume.
On 5/28/2021 8:58 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
There is no encrypted volume.
That file (1) needs to be populated for it to work at boot! :)
1)
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dm-crypt/System_configuration#Mounting_at_boot_time
--
John Doe
> Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
There is no encrypted volume.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:37 PM john doe wrote:
>
> On 5/28/2021 8:31 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> > Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg logs.
> >
> > [Fri May 28 14:14:19 2021] x86/cpu: VMX
On 5/28/2021 8:31 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg logs.
[Fri May 28 14:14:19 2021] x86/cpu: VMX (outside TXT) disabled by BIOS
[Fri May 28 14:14:20 2021] r8169 :06:00.0: unknown chip XID 641
[Fri May 28 14:14:22 2021] device-mapper: tabl
Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg logs.
[Fri May 28 14:14:19 2021] x86/cpu: VMX (outside TXT) disabled by BIOS
[Fri May 28 14:14:20 2021] r8169 :06:00.0: unknown chip XID 641
[Fri May 28 14:14:22 2021] device-mapper: table: 253:2: raid: Failed
to run raid array
[Fr
On 2/16/20 05:36, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:57:36PM -0700, Tom Dial wrote:
>> Neither the host nor the guest VM is rebooted often, and it is not a
>> particularly serious problem now that it's known, but it would be better
>> gone. I'm not averse to doing work to so
> Boot faults to an (initrd) prompt with a complaint that the /usr LV,
> correctly identified by its UUID, does not exist. It does, but is not
> activated. In fact, lvscan shows that only the root and swap LVs
> are active, and the others are not.
Why does the initrd want to check activation of so
Hi.
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:57:36PM -0700, Tom Dial wrote:
> Neither the host nor the guest VM is rebooted often, and it is not a
> particularly serious problem now that it's known, but it would be better
> gone. I'm not averse to doing work to sort this out, but would be
> grateful for
On 11-05-2018 21:46, Forest Dean Feighner wrote:
> I really didn't prepare for lvm. I never used lvm before this so had
> no idea of lvm before.
>
> Snapshots sound like an awesome idea.
>
> I would like to do a configured base install, create a snapshot, and
> modify (fork), the base for different
I really didn't prepare for lvm. I never used lvm before this so had no
idea of lvm before.
Snapshots sound like an awesome idea.
I would like to do a configured base install, create a snapshot, and modify
(fork), the base for different things.
With 20/20 hindsight. The default doesn't seem to h
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:15 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:20:32AM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > > To me, it seems me the partition is too large to to reduce for
> snapshots.
> >
> > What do you mean ?
> > Did you allocate all the available space in the volume group to
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:20:32AM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > To me, it seems me the partition is too large to to reduce for snapshots.
>
> What do you mean ?
> Did you allocate all the available space in the volume group to the logical
> volumes ? Creating snapshots requires space.
Yeah,
Le 11/05/2018 à 01:21, Forest Dean Feighner a écrit :
I'm completely new to lvm.
Then you really should read more about LVM and experiment it before
installing a system on LVM.
lvs
LV VG Attr LSize Pool Origin Data% Meta% Move Log
Cpy%Sync Convert
root build-vg -wi-ao-
Andy Pont wrote:
> When booting it sits for 90 seconds flashing messages of the form:
>
> Start job running for dev-mapper-sdcserver/x2dvar.device
> Start job running for dev-mapper-sdcserver/x2dopt.device
> Start job running for dev-mapper-sdcserver/x2dhome.device
>
smells like systemd
On 02/28/18 07:28, Andy Pont wrote:
Hello,
Today I have upgraded the third of our three Debian servers from Jessie (8.10)
to Stretch (9.3) and whilst the first two went without a problem the final one
only boots to the maintenance mode prompt.
This particular server uses an Intel motherboard
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 02:17:59PM +1100, Igor Cicimov wrote:
> Look at filter examples in /etc/lvm/lvm.conf
That's not what I'm looking for. I *do* have LVM physical and logical
volumes on most of my drives, e.g. a volume group on my backup drive.
And I want an explicit call to vgscan to find
On 15 Dec 2017 11:36 pm, "Steve Keller" wrote:
When calling LVM commands it seems they all scan all disks for
physical volumes. This is annoying because it spins up all disks that
are currently idle and causes long delays to wait for these disks to
come up. Also, I don't understand why LVM comm
Hi Steve,
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 01:19:46PM +0100, Steve Keller wrote:
> When calling LVM commands it seems they all scan all disks for
> physical volumes. This is annoying because it spins up all disks that
> are currently idle and causes long delays to wait for these disks to
> come up.
Can y
On 12 Dec 2016 10:21 pm, "Jonathan Dowland" wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:53:30AM +1100, Igor Cicimov wrote:
> It depends. If you are using cloud services with remote shared storage
like
> AWS EBS it does not make sense using LVM on top of RAID. To me it is just
> adding complexity to already
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:53:30AM +1100, Igor Cicimov wrote:
> It depends. If you are using cloud services with remote shared storage like
> AWS EBS it does not make sense using LVM on top of RAID. To me it is just
> adding complexity to already complex SAN storage. You also have no idea
> what th
On 6 Dec 2016 5:14 am, "Nicholas Geovanis" wrote:
>
> I'd like to make sure I'm taking away the right thing from this
conversation.
> It seems we have high-level recommendations _not_ to use LVM RAID1.
> Not just over MD, simply don't use it at all. Do I get that right?
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at
Roman Tsisyk wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Dan Ritter wrote:
>>> If you want LVM on top of RAID, use LVM on top of mdadm, but
>>> consider whether you might actually want ZFS instead.
>> Side note: With ZFS you don't want to use MD (or any other RAID)
>> below
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Dan Ritter wrote:
>
>> If you want LVM on top of RAID, use LVM on top of mdadm, but consider
>> whether you might actually want ZFS instead.
>
> Side note: With ZFS you don't want to use MD (or any other RAID) below
> ZFS but instead put all d
Dan Ritter wrote:
> If you want LVM on top of RAID, use LVM on top of mdadm, but consider
> whether you might actually want ZFS instead.
Side note: With ZFS you don't want to use MD (or any other RAID) below
ZFS but instead put all disk directly into a (or multiple) VDEV.
S°
--
Sigmentation f
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> I'd like to make sure I'm taking away the right thing from this
> conversation.
> It seems we have high-level recommendations _not_ to use LVM RAID1.
Yes.
> Not just over MD, simply don't use it at all. Do I get that right?
Yes. With MD lower in the stack, you don't
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:14:14PM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> I'd like to make sure I'm taking away the right thing from this
> conversation.
> It seems we have high-level recommendations _not_ to use LVM RAID1.
> Not just over MD, simply don't use it at all. Do I get that right?
>
Yes.
I
I'd like to make sure I'm taking away the right thing from this
conversation.
It seems we have high-level recommendations _not_ to use LVM RAID1.
Not just over MD, simply don't use it at all. Do I get that right?
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 0
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 07:39:37PM +0100, Kamil Jońca wrote:
> So far I used lvm with raid1 device as PV.
>
> Recently I have to extend my VG
> (https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00909.html)
>
> and I read some about lvm.
> If I understand correctly, LVM have builtin RAID1 functiona
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2016, Kamil Jońca wrote:
>> If I understand correctly, LVM have builtin RAID1 functionality.
>> And I wonder about migrating
>> lvm over md --> (lvm with raid1) over physical hard drive partitions.
>>
>> Any cons?
>
> Yes, many. Don't do it.
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Kamil Jońca wrote:
> So far I used lvm with raid1 device as PV.
>
> Recently I have to extend my VG
> (https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00909.html)
>
> and I read some about lvm.
> If I understand correctly, LVM have builtin RAID1 functionality.
> And
Kamil Jońca wrote:
> So far I used lvm with raid1 device as PV.
> Recently I have to extend my VG
> (https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00909.html)
> and I read some about lvm. If I understand correctly, LVM have
> builtin RAID1 functionality. And I wonder about migrating lvm ove
On Sat, 03 Dec 2016, Kamil Jońca wrote:
> If I understand correctly, LVM have builtin RAID1 functionality.
> And I wonder about migrating
> lvm over md --> (lvm with raid1) over physical hard drive partitions.
>
> Any cons?
Yes, many. Don't do it.
--
Henrique Holschuh
I found the problem, here is what happened:
When first creating the raid partition for the lvm, I saved the config
to /etc/mdadm.conf
Everything worked fine, because somehow it still got detected and was
assembled as md127. I didnt notice and went on.
It seems that after an update (not shur
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:37:06PM +0100, Sebastian Weckend wrote:
> In the backup of the LVM configuration I found
>
> physical_volumes {
> pv0 {
> id = "zKO1Xq-VGmI-nX8P-Rwh3-wiFn-GuD4-26dAoZ"
> device = "/dev/md127" # Hint only
> status = ["ALLOCATABLE"]
>
In the backup of the LVM configuration I found
physical_volumes {
pv0 {
id = "zKO1Xq-VGmI-nX8P-Rwh3-wiFn-GuD4-26dAoZ"
device = "/dev/md127" # Hint only
status = ["ALLOCATABLE"]
flags = []
dev_size = 5798400896 # 2.70009 Terabytes
pe_start =
On 11/17/2015 6:08 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
In some of my reading I came across a page recommending LVM for
ease of adjusting space.
When searching for more information all I'm finding are
essentially HOWTO's with only a couple of paragraphs on "Whats"
and "Whys". Essentially nothing on "Why no
On 11/21/2015 4:40 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Saturday 21 November 2015 12:13:37 Richard Owlett wrote:
My analogy would be "When planning a trip thru NYC, via Grand
Central and Penn Station, are you really interested in number of
steps between levels of intervening subway stations?"
Very much so
On Saturday 21 November 2015 12:13:37 Richard Owlett wrote:
> My analogy would be "When planning a trip thru NYC, via Grand
> Central and Penn Station, are you really interested in number of
> steps between levels of intervening subway stations?"
Very much so. I spend much time sorting out just t
On Sat 21 Nov 2015 at 06:13:37 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> My analogy would be "When planning a trip thru NYC, via Grand Central and
> Penn Station, are you really interested in number of steps between levels of
> intervening subway stations?"
You are at liberty to answer your own question. It
On Sat, 2015-11-21 at 12:55 -0600, Joel Rees wrote:
> That's the common way of explaining fstab, and it is, indeed, the way
> I should have explained it if I were going to bother explaining it
> where slaves to convention congregate.
I agree with your points, but it's rude to sneer.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Joel Rees a écrit :
>>
>> Thinking in terms of partitions as the things you mount in /etc/fstab.
>
> Err, no.
Sometimes you think of things in ways that don't match the common
convention. Sometimes those ways of thinking spill out onto the
On 11/20/2015 4:28 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Chris Bannister
wrote:
[snip]
http://linuxconfig.org/linux-lvm-logical-volume-manager
And that might be the sort of overview the OP was looking for, even
though it looks more liike instructions for use.
It may be more
On 11/19/2015 6:46 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 11/18/2015 4:07 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
2015/11/18 9:09 "Richard Owlett":
In some of my reading I came across a page recommending LVM for ease
of adjusting space.[snip]
I've a machine set asi
On 11/21/2015 2:06 AM, Javi Barroso wrote:
Hello,
El 18 de noviembre de 2015 1:08:49 CET, Richard Owlett
escribió:
In some of my reading I came across a page recommending LVM for
ease of adjusting space.
When searching for more information all I'm finding are
essentially HOWTO's with only a
Joel Rees a écrit :
>
> Thinking in terms of partitions as the things you mount in /etc/fstab.
Err, no. The things you mount in /etc/fstab are filesystems, not
partitions. A filesystem may not even lie in a partition or volume
(think about tmpfs, nfs...).
Hello,
El 18 de noviembre de 2015 1:08:49 CET, Richard Owlett
escribió:
>In some of my reading I came across a page recommending LVM for
>ease of adjusting space.
>
>When searching for more information all I'm finding are
>essentially HOWTO's with only a couple of paragraphs on "Whats"
>and "
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Chris Bannister
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 09:46:34AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
>> LVM is much more flexible and less prone to do things to your data
>> than, say, the tools that re-size your partitions the hard way.
Thinking in terms of partitions as the thin
Joel Rees a écrit :
>
> I think I have heard of people booting straight out of LVM partitions,
> but that takes more gum tape than I like to use. I do believe grub is
> able to look into LVM partitions somewhat these days,
Indeed. And Linux software RAID.
> so you may want
> to play with having
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 09:46:34AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> LVM is much more flexible and less prone to do things to your data
> than, say, the tools that re-size your partitions the hard way. You do
> still have to exercise common sense, however.
>
> I've lost a re-sized partition permanently us
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> In article Joel Rees
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Martin Str|mberg wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> No information on dual boot.
>> >
>> > If with not Linux, it won't work.
>
>> That's news to me.
>
>> I've mulit-booted op
In article Joel Rees wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> No information on dual boot.
> >
> > If with not Linux, it won't work.
> That's news to me.
> I've mulit-booted openBSD, Fedora in a non-VM LVM, debian, SUSE, and a
> previous version of t
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> [...]
>
>> No information on dual boot.
>
> If with not Linux, it won't work.
That's news to me.
I've mulit-booted openBSD, Fedora in a non-VM LVM, debian, SUSE, and a
previous version of the OSS fork of Solaris. Not all at once, but
thr
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 11/18/2015 4:07 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
>>
>> 2015/11/18 9:09 "Richard Owlett":
>>>
>>>
>>> In some of my reading I came across a page recommending LVM for ease
>>> of adjusting space.
>>
>>
>> Yeah. I'm not using it now, but it did come i
On 11/18/2015 9:58 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:08:49PM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
In some of my reading I came across a page recommending LVM for
ease of adjusting space.
When searching for more information all I'm finding are
essentially HOWTO's with only a couple of
In article Richard Owlett
wrote:
> When searching for more information all I'm finding are
> essentially HOWTO's with only a couple of paragraphs on "Whats"
> and "Whys". Essentially nothing on "Why not".
One good use is when you're encrypting / (and /home if it's own) and swap.
I use luks t
On 19/11/2015 6:14 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> Windows XP runs on a dedicated machine whose functions are browsing and
> email.
XP -- that's dead now; lots of security issues that will never get fixed.
Do you really need Windows now? What is it that XP does for you that
you can't do with Windows
LVM should work the same way for both distros, but just in case, you might
want to do the initial setup in Squeeze. I don't know if anything has
changed in the LVM format in the past 20 years, but...
--|
John L. Ries |
Salford Systems |
Phone: (61
[As I'm subscribed "Reply-To" set to debian-user
]
On 11/18/2015 11:33 AM, John L. Ries wrote:
Which systems do you intend to dual boot?
Two configurations of Squeeze, possibly one of Jessie.
My understanding is
that if one of them is Windows, you're out of luck; but you can
always run Wi
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 01:29:01PM -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
LVM is a kludge.
Not at all.
LVM can increase the size of partitions by giving them more space on
either an empty section of disk or another disk. Either way, you
Yes.
then need to increase the filesystem size on that partition,
d...@randomstring.org wrote:
>
>Here's why not:
>
>LVM is a kludge.
Not at all, no. LVM *as a concept* has been around for ages in a lot
of enterprise systems. The Linux implementation using device-mapper
works reasonably well and provides a lot of features that people use a
lot.
>That doesn't me
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:08:49PM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> In some of my reading I came across a page recommending LVM for ease
> of adjusting space.
>
> When searching for more information all I'm finding are essentially
> HOWTO's with only a couple of paragraphs on "Whats" and "Whys".
> E
Which systems do you intend to dual boot? My understanding is that if
one of them is Windows, you're out of luck; but you can always run
Windows in a VM and let Linux manage the LVM file systems.
--|
John L. Ries |
Salford Systems |
Phone: (619)54
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:08:49PM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
In some of my reading I came across a page recommending LVM for ease of
adjusting space.
When searching for more information all I'm finding are essentially
HOWTO's with only a couple of paragraphs on "Whats" and "Whys".
Essenti
On 11/18/2015 4:07 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
2015/11/18 9:09 "Richard Owlett":
In some of my reading I came across a page recommending LVM for ease
of adjusting space.
Yeah. I'm not using it now, but it did come in handy when I was
still getting a feeling for partitioning.
I've a machine set as
2015/11/18 9:09 "Richard Owlett" :
>
> In some of my reading I came across a page recommending LVM for ease of
adjusting space.
Yeah. I'm not using it now, but it did come in handy when I was still
getting a feeling for partitioning.
> When searching for more information all I'm finding are essen
On 11/18/2015 2:03 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Richard Owlett a écrit :
In some of my reading I came across a page recommending LVM for
ease of adjusting space.
When searching for more information all I'm finding are
essentially HOWTO's with only a couple of paragraphs on "Whats"
and "Whys". Ess
Richard Owlett a écrit :
> In some of my reading I came across a page recommending LVM for
> ease of adjusting space.
>
> When searching for more information all I'm finding are
> essentially HOWTO's with only a couple of paragraphs on "Whats"
> and "Whys". Essentially nothing on "Why not".
>
Clear, thanks :)
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:46:38AM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:05:17PM +0200, Dark Victorian Spirit wrote:
> > I hope i can ask a question on top of this one,
> > what if i have a PV which is configured and in use for a while,
> > but i found out that i
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:05:17PM +0200, Dark Victorian Spirit wrote:
> I hope i can ask a question on top of this one,
> what if i have a PV which is configured and in use for a while,
> but i found out that i forgot to set the pertition type on LVM.
>
> Can i still change this without data loss
I hope i can ask a question on top of this one,
what if i have a PV which is configured and in use for a while,
but i found out that i forgot to set the pertition type on LVM.
Can i still change this without data loss or risk?
And if i don't will i face issues of another kind?
On Mon, Apr 20, 20
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:33:13 +0100
Darac Marjal wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:26:54AM +0200, Petter Adsen wrote:
> > Is it possible to have two VGs on the same PV?
>
> I don't believe so. The VG is the mapping layer in the LVM stack. It
> maps the LVs to the PVs. If you were to share a PV
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:26:54AM +0200, Petter Adsen wrote:
> Is it possible to have two VGs on the same PV?
I don't believe so. The VG is the mapping layer in the LVM stack. It
maps the LVs to the PVs. If you were to share a PV between VGs, then
you'd need some way to tell the VGs which parts o
Quoting David Christensen (dpchr...@holgerdanske.com):
>
> Then I heard about ZFS. So, I tried zfs-fuse (Debian package) and
> then ZFS on Linux (http://zfsonlinux.org/).
I love pages like this. I clicked on Debian. The page assumes you know
all about package keys and signing, but feels the nece
Petter Adsen wrote:
> /dev/md0 is a 1G mirror for /boot, no LVM there. /dev/md1 is a mirror,
> than consists of the major part of /dev/sda and /dev/sdb - both 250G.
> There are also 4G swap partitions on sda and sdb, no RAID there.
This isn't a complaint but just comment. I gave myself a lot of f
On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 15:09:20 +0300
Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 13:04:16 +0200
> Petter Adsen wrote:
> > root@fenris:~# vgdisplay -v
> > DEGRADED MODE. Incomplete RAID LVs will be processed.
> > Finding all volume groups
> > Finding volume group "ROOTVG"
> > --- Volume
Hi.
On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 13:04:16 +0200
Petter Adsen wrote:
> > Please post the output of vgdisplay -v.
>
> Here goes. "freshinstall" is just a snapshot of the system right after
> the first boot.
Yup. vgdisplay -v says just that.
> root@fenris:~# vgdisplay -v
> DEGRADED MODE. Incomplete
On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 13:56:33 +0300
Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 12:48:32 +0200
> Petter Adsen wrote:
>
> > I've just finished setting up Jessie with mdadm and LVM, the latter
> > of which I have never used before.
> >
> > /dev/md0 is a 1G mirror for /boot, no LVM there. /dev/md1 i
Hi.
On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 12:48:32 +0200
Petter Adsen wrote:
> I've just finished setting up Jessie with mdadm and LVM, the latter of
> which I have never used before.
>
> /dev/md0 is a 1G mirror for /boot, no LVM there. /dev/md1 is a mirror,
> than consists of the major part of /dev/sda and /dev
Reco wrote:
> Petter Adsen wrote:
> > > Resizing just works, as long as you don't forget the correct order for
> > > changing the filesystem and the volume. I.e.
> > >
> > > 1) Enlarge - volume first, filesystem last.
> > > 2) Reduce - filesystem first, volume last.
I am compelled to note that re
Hi.
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 04:31:22PM +0200, Petter Adsen wrote:
> > Resizing just works, as long as you don't forget the correct order for
> > changing the filesystem and the volume. I.e.
> >
> > 1) Enlarge - volume first, filesystem last.
> > 2) Reduce - filesystem first, volume last.
>
> I
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 17:05:43 +0300
Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 03:40:58PM +0200, Petter Adsen wrote:
> > This ties in nicely with something I'm sitting here and wondering
> > about right now. I'm preparing to upgrade my home server to Jessie
> > today, and at the same time I wan
Hi.
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 03:40:58PM +0200, Petter Adsen wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 09:15:42 -0400
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Friday 03 April 2015 05:35:49 Reco wrote:
> > > But doing it correct way would probably require using LVM
> > > (snapshots), and LVM is one of those things that are
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Bob Proulx a écrit :
> > Do you have any articles or blogs or postings you have written that
> > would summarize raid alternatives? I would enjoy reading whatever you
> > have written on the subject. Or if you recommended other references.
>
> There is no need to write a
Bob Proulx a écrit :
>
> Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>> Bob Proulx a écrit :
>>> I favor RAID6's extra redundancy for more safety but I
>>> still use RAID1 too.
>> RAID 1 can provide as much or more redundancy than RAID 6.
>> RAID 1 on 3 disks provides as much redundancy as RAID 6.
>> RAID 1 on 4 disks
Hello Pascal,
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Bob Proulx a écrit :
> > I favor RAID6's extra redundancy for more safety but I
> > still use RAID1 too.
>
> RAID 1 can provide as much or more redundancy than RAID 6.
> RAID 1 on 3 disks provides as much redundancy as RAID 6.
> RAID 1 on 4 disks provides mo
1 - 100 of 545 matches
Mail list logo
