* [linux-lvm] Driver vs. Not Active Groups
@ 2002-08-01 11:14 ronr
2002-08-01 11:28 ` Joe Thornber
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: ronr @ 2002-08-01 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
I am attempting to implement lvm (Linux kernel 2.4.5 Slackware 8.0)
using 2 drives for linux (lilo uses MBR on a 3rd). After partitioning
the drive, which will become (via copy from current drive) the new home
for the system under lvm (/, /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp, /home ext2fs), I
pvcreated all ok. When attempting to vgcreate, the volume groups
were not activated with vgcreate and vgchange -a y has no effect either.
When querying alt.os.linux.slackware all I got was suggestions to
install
2.4.18 plus 1.0 lvm. I would like not to do this, especially since lvm2
is coming out soon, if I can so as not to introduce further
idiosyncrasies (this is a test box). You would aid my decisioning if
you can tell me:
is it ok to have an lvm driver (per /proc/lvm/global) at 0.9.1_beta2
when
the lvm tools appear to be (per pvcreate -V) 0.9.1_beta6? Could this
the
cause of inactivity with vgcreate?
Appreciatively,
Ron Riese
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Driver vs. Not Active Groups
2002-08-01 11:14 [linux-lvm] Driver vs. Not Active Groups ronr
@ 2002-08-01 11:28 ` Joe Thornber
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Joe Thornber @ 2002-08-01 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 09:17:09AM -0700, ronr wrote:
> I am attempting to implement lvm (Linux kernel 2.4.5 Slackware 8.0)
> using 2 drives for linux (lilo uses MBR on a 3rd). After partitioning
> the drive, which will become (via copy from current drive) the new home
> for the system under lvm (/, /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp, /home ext2fs), I
> pvcreated all ok. When attempting to vgcreate, the volume groups
> were not activated with vgcreate and vgchange -a y has no effect either.
>
> When querying alt.os.linux.slackware all I got was suggestions to
> install
> 2.4.18 plus 1.0 lvm. I would like not to do this, especially since lvm2
>
> is coming out soon, if I can so as not to introduce further
> idiosyncrasies (this is a test box). You would aid my decisioning if
> you can tell me:
> is it ok to have an lvm driver (per /proc/lvm/global) at 0.9.1_beta2
> when
> the lvm tools appear to be (per pvcreate -V) 0.9.1_beta6? Could this
> the
> cause of inactivity with vgcreate?
Have you created any volumes with lvcreate ?
- Joe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-08-01 11:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-08-01 11:14 [linux-lvm] Driver vs. Not Active Groups ronr
2002-08-01 11:28 ` Joe Thornber
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.