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 (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mB9Ko2dQ007539 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:50:02 -0500 Received: from d01.online-netz.de (d01.online-netz.de [213.160.90.171]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB9Knihw020380 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:49:44 -0500 Received: from news.conactive.com (fandango.conactive.com [212.202.99.226]) by d01.online-netz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 349CDF9206 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 21:49:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:49:40 +0100 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] shift PV from disk to raid device? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Kai Schaetzl In-Reply-To: <1228852584.32405.37.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> References: <493E48DE.3070705@redhat.com> <493EB3A0.6020306@redhat.com> <1228852584.32405.37.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> Reply-To: maillists@conactive.com, 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="iso-8859-1" To: LVM general discussion and development Doug Ledford wrote on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:56:24 -0500: > One thing that might be happening here (and I'm not sure since I'm not > an LVM expert) is that when the lvm stack finds the pv on /dev/sdb3 > or /dev/sda3, it sees a full size partition (meaning it can access all > the way to the end of the device). But this couldn't normally happen if I just created LVM on top of the md=20 device, correct? However, as I created a PV on /dev/sda3, did not remove=20 it and then create the md array on it and then the PV on the md device=20 there might be something going on ... especially in case the array broke. > The solution to this problem is to create the raid device with a > superblock format of 1.1 or 1.2 (aka, -e 1.1 or -e 1.2). man mdadm gives the difference between 1.1 and 1.2 as 1.2 putting the RAID = superblock 4k after the beginning. Is this another measure against=20 accidental overwrites? Would you recommend 1.2 if I were to use a newer=20 superblock version? Kai --=20 Kai Sch=EF=BF=BDtzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com