From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Russell Coker Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Upgrade path from 0.8i to 0.9? Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 09:40:56 +0100 References: <20001216184849.A12569@pclab.ifg.uni-kiel.de> In-Reply-To: <20001216184849.A12569@pclab.ifg.uni-kiel.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0012170940560K.00774@lyta> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com, Torsten Landschoff On Saturday 16 December 2000 18:48, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > We are planning to upgrade a production server tomorrow. As we have to > build a new kernel anyway I would like to upgrade the LVM code from 0.8= i > to 0.9. > > I just tried the same thing on a test system and I was unable to get it > working. After installing the new kernel I installed the lvm Debian > package from sistina.com (which removed /etc/lvmtab and /etc/lvmtab.d) > and tried to reactivate the volumes. This is what I get: I should have this sort of thing working cleanly from the Debian packagin= g=20 part within 2 weeks. This includes having /etc/lvmtab and /etc/lvmtab.d=20 owned by the lvm-common package which won't need to be upgraded (except f= or=20 when man pages change). Also upgrading lvm-common won't trash things bec= ause=20 they will be registered as conffiles. Please try out my test packages of 0.8.1 on http://www.coker.com.au/lvm/ = on a=20 test machine (NOT A PRODUCTION SERVER) and let me know how they go. --=20 http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page