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
>
> There should be none.
>
>Note, however, that /dev/mapper/ may contain non-LVM specials as
>well, such as cryptsetup(8) ones.
>
>My guess is that /dev/VG/LV may provide some sort of backwards
>compatibility, as LVM may have been implemented before Linux's
> yudi v writes:
> I created a LV and was going to use the following command to create a
> file system:
> mkfs.ext4 /dev/vg/lv
> someone suggested I use:
> mkfs.ext4 /dev/mapper/vg-lv
> What's the difference?
There should be none.
Note, however, that /dev/mapper/ m
Hi Yudi,
yudi v wrote:
I created a LV and was going to use the following command to create a
file system:
mkfs.ext4 /dev/vg/lv
someone suggested I use:
mkfs.ext4 /dev/mapper/vg-lv
What's the difference?
Perhaps nothing, provided it is mapped properly:
# ls -lart /dev/mapper/vg0-root /de
I managed to work out what was wrong! instead of using /dev/mapper/onboard--sata-static I should have used /dev/onboard-sata/static as soon as i made this simple change everything worked :) sorry for being such a newbieOn 9 Feb 2006, at 16:47, Gabe Granger wrote:Thanks for pointing me in the ri
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, i did the followingresize_reiserfs -s-14G /dev/mapper/onboard--sata-static Which finished saying "resize_reiserfs: Resizing finished successfully."But when I then tried to resize the LV using lvreduce -L -14G /dev/mapper/onboard--sata-staticI get the f
10 matches
Mail list logo
