From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc MERLIN Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] vgchange -a y /dev/System fails Message-Id: <20020201210928.GO8651@merlins.org> References: <20020125233533.GK26045@merlins.org> <20020128104258.A24830@sistina.com> <20020129215738.GA8651@merlins.org> <20020130131205.A3769@sistina.com> <20020131030417.GN8651@merlins.org> <20020131121417.A9764@sistina.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020131121417.A9764@sistina.com> 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: Date: Fri Feb 1 15:10:02 2002 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 12:14:17PM +0100, Heinz J . Mauelshagen wrote: > > -> My BigAssLVMRaid VG is gone :-( > > > > Did I just lose my data? > > If you really tried all your metadata backups unsuccessfully, I am afraid > so :-( I tried other ones, but every time, I'm getting: vgcfgrestore -- VGDA for "BigAssLVMRaid" successfully restored to physical volume "/dev/rd/disc0/part7" vgcfgrestore -- you may not have an actual backup of restored volume group "BigAssLVMRaid" Am I supposed to give a special flag to vgcfgrestore, or maybe pvcreate? (I did not use the default physicalextentsize) As a reminder, I am currently running this command: FILE=/etc/lvmconf/BigAssLVMRaid.conf.2.old; vgcfgrestore -f $FILE -n BigAssLVMRaid -ll; read a; pvcreate -yff `cat /tmp/partlist`; for pv in `cat /tmp/partlist `; do vgcfgrestore -f $FILE -n BigAssLVMRaid $pv; done; vgscan Short of all this, can I re-create the VG the same way I did the first time, and hope to get my filesytem again if I recreate the same LVs? (like I can do with software raid) This VG was working fine before I restored the other one (active and all) > Some users reported snapshot problems with the recent 2.4.x kernels. They > are not 100% reliable due to VM issues being sorted out by the kernel > community hopefully which will hopefully be integrated in 2.4.18. Ok. I guess I'll know to steer clear from snapshots in the meantime, but if LVM doesn't even allow me to recover a VG that hasn't been overwriten with random data, I don't know how much data I'm willing to trust to it... Either way, thanks for your help. Marc -- Microsoft is to operating systems & security .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger marc_f@merlins.org for PGP key