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 m41KvtZ9003878 for ; Thu, 1 May 2008 16:57:55 -0400 Received: from vms040pub.verizon.net (vms040pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.40]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m41KvgeI014207 for ; Thu, 1 May 2008 16:57:42 -0400 Received: from [192.168.2.102] ([72.91.189.24]) by vms040.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K0700KUPJQT0UQ2@vms040.mailsrvcs.net> for linux-lvm@redhat.com; Thu, 01 May 2008 16:01:42 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 16:57:23 -0400 From: Gerry Reno Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] F7 will not boot after running backup w/snapshot In-reply-to: <481A2BB4.7080504@Media-Brokers.com> Message-id: <481A2EB3.40703@verizon.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <4818F2FC.5050907@verizon.net> <20080501154800.GA5941@us.ibm.com> <481A08A7.5010305@verizon.net> <481A0E28.5030108@Media-Brokers.com> <481A1C09.7070508@verizon.net> <481A1D32.6020705@Media-Brokers.com> <481A1FAF.5050303@verizon.net> <481A221D.80209@Media-Brokers.com> <481A262C.7080908@verizon.net> <20080501202534.GU18935@agk.fab.redhat.com> <481A286E.80309@verizon.net> <481A2947.9070907@Media-Brokers.com> <481A29DD.6040108@verizon.net> <481A2BB4.7080504@Media-Brokers.com> 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"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development Charles Marcus wrote: > On 5/1/2008 4:36 PM, Gerry Reno wrote: >> Without knowing the exact cause of the hang there is no way to know >> if the ramdisk was at issue. I doubt it myself, I ran a whole series >> of backups last night using the ramdisk snapshot and everything went >> fine. > > Actually, I'm not talking about the hang as much as I am the problem > you had recovering from it... > > My questions is, had the snapshot volume been on a regular hard drive, > would you have had the same problems recovering from the situation. > I don't think anyone could possibly say. There was corruption involved and that could have occurred for lots of reasons. My thought is that even if the ramdisk were not present on the next boot there should be no reason for that to cause corruption. There were no lvm mods made to the rw snapshot which means in essence it was read-only. The VG did not mount and nothing wrote to any filesystem on the VG which means the corruption is probably totally unrelated or is a bug. LVM should be robust enough to fully recover from this without any corruption. It just should have discarded the old snapshot. The original volume should not be affected. But as I said, I suspect there may be a bug. Probably some scenario is not being handled in the code. Gerry