From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i61DR9029824 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:27:09 -0400 Received: from ITWMXGP02.MED.HARVARD.EDU (itwmxgp02.med.harvard.edu [134.174.150.67]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i61DR3Xn014616 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:27:03 -0400 Message-ID: <40E4104B.70809@hms.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 09:23:23 -0400 From: Mark Komarinski MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Snapshots with Debian 2.4.26 References: <40E2FFB1.6060301@hms.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <40E2FFB1.6060301@hms.harvard.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mkomarinski@hms.harvard.edu, LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development Mark Komarinski wrote: > Right. I'm off breaking all the rules here. Here's what I have: > > Debian backport of 2.4.26 (only change was adding 64G support) > Debian stable (1.0.4 it says) > > I want to use snapshots for backing up oracle, but here's what I have: > > cliff:~# lvcreate -l1 -s -n oracle_control_1_snap > /dev/vg00/oracle_control_1 > lvcreate -- INFO: using default snapshot chunk size of 64 KB for > "/dev/vg00/oracle_control_1_snap" > lvcreate -- doing automatic backup of "vg00" > lvcreate -- logical volume "/dev/vg00/oracle_control_1_snap" > successfully created > > cliff:~# mount /dev/vg00/oracle_control_1_snap /snapshot/oracle/ > mount: block device /dev/vg00/oracle_control_1_snap is write-protected, > mounting read-only > mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on > /dev/vg00/oracle_control_1_snap, > or too many mounted file systems > cliff:~# > > (The size of the lv that I'm doing a snapshot of is 1 64M extent, so > doing a 1 extent in size should be enough, yes?) > > My understanding is that this is a result of the VFS patch not being > applied. But there doesn't seem to be a VFS patch for 2.4.26. > > Any ideas? I can provide whatever additional information you need, but > this is really strange. > > -Mark > I'll follow up to myself, as I found the problem. I was able to find the 2.4.22 VFS patch which applied pretty cleanly (there was a DM patch, but since I'm not using it, there was nothing to apply). Rebooted and it's working fine. -Mark -- Mark Komarinski mkomarinski@hms.harvard.edu Sr. Linux/UNIX System Administrator http://wqcg.med.harvard.edu West Quad Computing Group Harvard Medical School