Re: [linux-lvm] Problems with 1.0

Re: [linux-lvm] Problems with 1.0

[Tren Blackburn]

[-- Attachment #1: smime.p7m --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-mime, Size: 7970 bytes --]

Re: [linux-lvm] Problems with 1.0

[Jan Schreckenbach]

Tren Blackburn wrote:
[snipp]
> >> I had installed the 1.0 driver into my 2.4.8 kernel, and rebooted.
> >> Everything came up fine, so I installed the user tools and forgot about
> >> them...until I had to reboot this evening...Now the LVM tools are
> >> dynamically linked (Looking for libgcc_s.so.1)?  Or so it seems.  I am
> no
> >> a C programmer and don't fully understand how linking works, but it
> seems
> >> to me that the beta 8 tools were statically linked as they didn't need
> any
> >> external libraries, but the 1.0 user tools are dynamically linked.
> >>
> >> Now this probably doesn't seem like a problem, but when your libraries
> are
> >> mounted on a LVM volume and you have no tools to activate your volume
> >> with...well...you can probably guess  =)  Luckilly I had an identically
> >> configured machine that I hadn't upgraded to 1.0 yet (same gcc 3.0
> >> compiler, etc) so I just copied the tools across to the other machine
> >> (beta 8 tools) and all is fine again.
> >>
> >> If I am completely off base as to what is happening here, please
> correct
> >> me, and please also let me know how to solve this problem.>
> >
> >Tren,
> >that shouldn't be a problem because the default installation directory
> for
> >shared libraries is /lib which belongs to the root directory. LVM tools
> just
> >access any shread libraries from there unless you use the --libdir
> configure
> >option to chosse a different one.
> >
[snipp]
> Also, to answer another persons question, no, I did *not* build the beta 8
> tools with 2.9x.  Both beta8 and 1.0 were built with 3.0.  3.0 was built
> with 2.9x and then 2.9x was uninstalled.  The libraries for 3.0 sit in
> /usr/local/lib, not /lib.
> 
> So, the problem is with 1.0 tools, it needs access to a filesystem that is
> *not* mounted to load in the library.
> 

Hi,

you must not have a part of your base system on a partion
other than /. If you compile programms that are part of your
base system with gcc-3 you need to have the libraries in your
root-partition. 
The time you installed gcc-3 ist was a kind of add-on, because
you did not need it for any part of your base system. Therefore
it was OK to have it on /usr/local.
Reinstall gcc-3 on / or compile LVM with gcc-2.9x. You may
also do a ldd on every binary you need from LVM and copy
the libraries over to /lib.

cu,
Jan

--
_______________________________________________________________________

THE BEST RUN E-BUSINESSES RUN SAP
_______________________________________________________________________

Jan Schreckenbach                      email: Jan.Schreckenbach@sap.com
SAP AG Walldorf/Baden, Germany         Phone: +49 6227  7-47474
LinuxLab                               Fax  : +49 6227 78-31414

SAP LinuxLab support address: linux@sap.com

[linux-lvm] Problems with 1.0

[Tren Blackburn]

[-- Attachment #1: smime.p7m --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-mime, Size: 4488 bytes --]

Re: [linux-lvm] Problems with 1.0

[Heinz J . Mauelshagen]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 10:55:35PM -0600, Tren Blackburn wrote:
> Hi List;
> 
> I had installed the 1.0 driver into my 2.4.8 kernel, and rebooted.
> Everything came up fine, so I installed the user tools and forgot about
> them...until I had to reboot this evening...Now the LVM tools are
> dynamically linked (Looking for libgcc_s.so.1)?  Or so it seems.  I am no
> a C programmer and don't fully understand how linking works, but it seems
> to me that the beta 8 tools were statically linked as they didn't need any
> external libraries, but the 1.0 user tools are dynamically linked.
> 
> Now this probably doesn't seem like a problem, but when your libraries are
> mounted on a LVM volume and you have no tools to activate your volume
> with...well...you can probably guess  =)  Luckilly I had an identically
> configured machine that I hadn't upgraded to 1.0 yet (same gcc 3.0
> compiler, etc) so I just copied the tools across to the other machine
> (beta 8 tools) and all is fine again.
> 
> If I am completely off base as to what is happening here, please correct
> me, and please also let me know how to solve this problem.

Tren,
that shouldn't be a problem because the default installation directory for
shared libraries is /lib which belongs to the root directory. LVM tools just
access any shread libraries from there unless you use the --libdir configure
option to chosse a different one.

If you are not able to mount the root filesystem (no matter on which block 
device including a logical volume it sits) you are in trouble anyway ;-)

> 
> As always I appreciate all help this list gives.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tren.

-- 

Regards,
Heinz    -- The LVM Guy --

*** Software bugs are stupid.
    Nevertheless it needs not so stupid people to solve them ***

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Heinz Mauelshagen                                 Sistina Software Inc.
Senior Consultant/Developer                       Am Sonnenhang 11
                                                  56242 Marienrachdorf
                                                  Germany
Mauelshagen@Sistina.com                           +49 2626 141200
                                                       FAX 924446
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [linux-lvm] Problems with 1.0

[Patrick Caulfield]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 10:55:35PM -0600, Tren Blackburn wrote:
> Hi List;
> 
> I had installed the 1.0 driver into my 2.4.8 kernel, and rebooted.
> Everything came up fine, so I installed the user tools and forgot about
> them...until I had to reboot this evening...Now the LVM tools are
> dynamically linked (Looking for libgcc_s.so.1)?  Or so it seems.  I am no
> a C programmer and don't fully understand how linking works, but it seems
> to me that the beta 8 tools were statically linked as they didn't need any
> external libraries, but the 1.0 user tools are dynamically linked.

libgcc_s.so.1 is new for GCC 3.0. gcc 2 statically linked libgcc. So it looks
like maybe you built beta8 with gcc 2 and 1.0 with gcc 3.

In any event, as Heinz says, libgcc.so.1 should be in /lib if gcc was correctly
installed - though if you are booting from an initrd it may not have found its
way onto that.

patrick