From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:22:56 -0500 From: dmeyer@dmeyer.net Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] 0.9.1 vgscan doesn't detect upgraded vg's Message-ID: <20010206032256.A831@jhereg.dmeyer.net> References: <3A7F6413.A80D1803@twisted.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200102060630.f166UYM32021@webber.adilger.net> 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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com In article <200102060630.f166UYM32021@webber.adilger.net> you write: > Michael McLinn writes: > > My theory is each pv is supposed to have the the UUID's of > > itself, and all other pv's in it's vg within it's UUID > > datastructure. Is this so? > > Correct. There was another user who reported the same bug, but after > they were playing with the system a bit, it started to work (i.e. the > UUIDs were filled in) so it was not looked at further. That other user was me. I eventually commented out the UUID check in pv_read_all_pv_of_vg as the previous poster suggested. This let me run vgscan, vgchange -ay, and mount my LVs. Just go to pv_read_all_pv_of_vg.c and get rid of the code after the if ( uuids > 0 ) { check. > > If this is the case, it seems it would be possible to write the > > correct UUID's to the datastructure on disk, and potentially > > improve (maybe even fix) my situation. After getting vgscan to find my VGs, I pretty much just lucked into my UUIDs getting set correctly and I'm still not sure what did it. All I did was activate my VGs (which I'm told couldn't have fixed the UUIDs), run vgck (ditto), and run vgscan after the VGs were active. vgscan at least _calls_ pv_write_uuidlist, so it is a possibility. However, running vgscan on the non-active VGs definitely didn't update the UUIDs for me. > > One more note that might be of interest, these volume groups were > > created with a much earlier version of lvm, 0.6 or 0.7 I believe. > > I don't know what the situation was with the other person who had > this same bug, but it is good to know anyways. Mine were originally created with 0.8final. -- Dave Meyer dmeyer@dmeyer.net