From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:47:36 -0500 From: David Teigland Message-ID: <20181024144736.GA14896@redhat.com> References: <5BC6C5AC020000F90003ACAD@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> <20181017141025.GA9941@redhat.com> <20181017184204.GC14214@redhat.com> <5BC84979020000F90003B507@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> <20181018160159.GA28661@redhat.com> <20181018175923.GC28661@redhat.com> <5BCE854D020000F90003C508@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> <20181023150436.GB8413@redhat.com> <59EBFA5B020000E767ECE9F9@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> <5BCFD78A020000F90003C8CA@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5BCFD78A020000F90003C8CA@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Fails to create LVM volume on the top of RAID1 after upgrade lvm2 to v2.02.180 Reply-To: 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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Gang He Cc: Sven Eschenberg , linux-lvm@redhat.com On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 08:23:06PM -0600, Gang He wrote: > Teigland wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 08:19:57PM -0600, Gang He wrote: > >> Process: 815 ExecStart=/usr/sbin/lvm pvscan --cache --activate ay 9:126 > > (code=exited, status=5) > >> > >> Oct 22 07:34:56 linux-dnetctw lvm[815]: WARNING: Not using device > > /dev/md126 for PV qG1QRz-Ivm1-QVwq-uaHV-va9w-wwXh-lIIOhV. > >> Oct 22 07:34:56 linux-dnetctw lvm[815]: WARNING: PV > > qG1QRz-Ivm1-QVwq-uaHV-va9w-wwXh-lIIOhV prefers device /dev/sdb2 because > > of previous preference. > >> Oct 22 07:34:56 linux-dnetctw lvm[815]: Cannot activate LVs in VG vghome > > while PVs appear on duplicate devices. > > > > I'd try disabling lvmetad, I've not been testing these with lvmetad on. > your means is, I should let the user disable lvmetad? yes > > We may need to make pvscan read both the start and end of every disk to > > handle these md 1.0 components, and I'm not sure how to do that yet > > without penalizing every pvscan. > What can we do for now? it looks there needs add more code implement this logic. Excluding component devices in global_filter is always the most direct way of solving problems like this. (I still hope to find a solution that doesn't require that.)