* [linux-lvm] Re: LVM2 on top of RAID1? (x86_64)
@ 2004-02-12 10:10 Douglas Kilpatrick
2004-02-12 12:41 ` Luca Berra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Douglas Kilpatrick @ 2004-02-12 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= <mru@kth.se> writes:
> Douglas Kilpatrick <kilpatds@oppositelock.org> writes:
> > complains about seeing 3 extra instances of the id, and decides that
> > the PV is actually on /dev/sda (or /dev/sdb, depending on boot), not
> > /dev/md1.
> I have a similar setup and ran into the same problem. I solved it by
> placing this in /etc/lvm/lvm.conf:
>
> devices {
> filter = [ "r,hd," ]
> }
That appears to have fixed it. Thanks.
Doug
--
Doug Kilpatrick
kilpatds@oppositelock.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] Re: LVM2 on top of RAID1? (x86_64)
2004-02-12 10:10 [linux-lvm] Re: LVM2 on top of RAID1? (x86_64) Douglas Kilpatrick
@ 2004-02-12 12:41 ` Luca Berra
2004-02-12 13:40 ` Kevin P. Fleming
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Luca Berra @ 2004-02-12 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm; +Cc: linux-lvm
Douglas Kilpatrick wrote:
> =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= <mru@kth.se> writes:
>
>
>>Douglas Kilpatrick <kilpatds@oppositelock.org> writes:
>
>
>>>complains about seeing 3 extra instances of the id, and decides that
>>>the PV is actually on /dev/sda (or /dev/sdb, depending on boot), not
>>>/dev/md1.
>
>
>>I have a similar setup and ran into the same problem. I solved it by
>>placing this in /etc/lvm/lvm.conf:
>>
>>devices {
>> filter = [ "r,hd," ]
>>}
>
i still believe it would be better if lvm ignored md component devices
completely.
L.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] Re: LVM2 on top of RAID1? (x86_64)
2004-02-12 12:41 ` Luca Berra
@ 2004-02-12 13:40 ` Kevin P. Fleming
2004-02-12 15:05 ` Luca Berra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Kevin P. Fleming @ 2004-02-12 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Luca Berra wrote:
> i still believe it would be better if lvm ignored md component devices
> completely.
In kernel 2.6 land this is easy to do as well (for everything, not just
MD). When vgscan tries to open the device to read metadata, open it with
O_EXCL. If any other kernel subsystem is currently using the device,
then the open() will fail and vgscan can ignore the device.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Re: LVM2 on top of RAID1? (x86_64)
2004-02-12 13:40 ` Kevin P. Fleming
@ 2004-02-12 15:05 ` Luca Berra
2004-02-12 15:30 ` Joe Thornber
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Luca Berra @ 2004-02-12 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Luca Berra wrote:
>
>> i still believe it would be better if lvm ignored md component devices
>> completely.
>
>
> In kernel 2.6 land this is easy to do as well (for everything, not just
> MD). When vgscan tries to open the device to read metadata, open it with
> O_EXCL. If any other kernel subsystem is currently using the device,
> then the open() will fail and vgscan can ignore the device.
this won't help if the device is not yet opened by md
i posted a patch to this list that checks for an md superblock.
i am pushing for consideration of this approach.
L.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Re: LVM2 on top of RAID1? (x86_64)
2004-02-12 15:05 ` Luca Berra
@ 2004-02-12 15:30 ` Joe Thornber
2004-02-12 15:54 ` Luca Berra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Joe Thornber @ 2004-02-12 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 09:06:03PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
> this won't help if the device is not yet opened by md
> i posted a patch to this list that checks for an md superblock.
> i am pushing for consideration of this approach.
One of the problems with LVM1 was that there was far too much hard
coded behaviour such as this.
- Joe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] Re: LVM2 on top of RAID1? (x86_64)
2004-02-12 15:30 ` Joe Thornber
@ 2004-02-12 15:54 ` Luca Berra
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Luca Berra @ 2004-02-12 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Joe Thornber wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 09:06:03PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
>
>>this won't help if the device is not yet opened by md
>>i posted a patch to this list that checks for an md superblock.
>>i am pushing for consideration of this approach.
>
>
> One of the problems with LVM1 was that there was far too much hard
> coded behaviour such as this.
This is a good point, but:
The current LVM2 behaviour is confusing for users that upgrade from
2.4/lvm1 to 2.6/lvm2 so i would like to address it.
LVM2 already code already contains exceptions for MD devices.
since we have a configuration file we could add a configuration switch
for ignoring devices with md superblocks (possibly defaulting to ignore,
which is what users expect)
WDYT?
L.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [linux-lvm] LVM2 on top of RAID1? (x86_64)
@ 2004-02-09 10:36 Douglas Kilpatrick
2004-02-09 10:43 ` [linux-lvm] " Måns Rullgård
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Douglas Kilpatrick @ 2004-02-09 10:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
I'm trying to setup a new box the same way my current box is setup.
I've split the drives into two sections, one of which I'm combining into
a RAID0 stripe, the other a RAID1 mirror set. (sorry for the redundancy.)
The Stripe seems to work fine. The mirror isn't getting past the
pvcreate stage.
The system is mostly a FC1 test1 x86_64 box. I've got a stock 2.6.2
kernel compiled on it.
mkraid appears to have worked fine.
lvm pvcreate /dev/md1
appears to work, but
lvm pvs
complains about seeing 3 extra instances of the id, and decides that the
PV is actually on /dev/sda (or /dev/sdb, depending on boot), not /dev/md1.
Um? Anyway to fix this? Help?
Thanks,
Doug
--
kilpatds@oppositelock.org
Outta Control Racing, Inc.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [linux-lvm] Re: LVM2 on top of RAID1? (x86_64)
2004-02-09 10:36 [linux-lvm] " Douglas Kilpatrick
@ 2004-02-09 10:43 ` Måns Rullgård
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Måns Rullgård @ 2004-02-09 10:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Douglas Kilpatrick <kilpatds@oppositelock.org> writes:
> I'm trying to setup a new box the same way my current box is
> setup. I've split the drives into two sections, one of which I'm
> combining into a RAID0 stripe, the other a RAID1 mirror set. (sorry
> for the redundancy.)
>
> lvm pvs
>
> complains about seeing 3 extra instances of the id, and decides that
> the PV is actually on /dev/sda (or /dev/sdb, depending on boot), not
> /dev/md1.
I have a similar setup and ran into the same problem. I solved it by
placing this in /etc/lvm/lvm.conf:
devices {
filter = [ "r,hd," ]
}
That tells lvm to never look at a block device with "hd" in the name.
You should probably change "hd" to "sd".
--
M�ns Rullg�rd
mru@kth.se
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-02-12 20:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-02-12 10:10 [linux-lvm] Re: LVM2 on top of RAID1? (x86_64) Douglas Kilpatrick
2004-02-12 12:41 ` Luca Berra
2004-02-12 13:40 ` Kevin P. Fleming
2004-02-12 15:05 ` Luca Berra
2004-02-12 15:30 ` Joe Thornber
2004-02-12 15:54 ` Luca Berra
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-02-09 10:36 [linux-lvm] " Douglas Kilpatrick
2004-02-09 10:43 ` [linux-lvm] " Måns Rullgård
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.