From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx12.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.17]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sBFLsMtO007850 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:54:22 -0500 Received: from mail-qa0-f47.google.com (mail-qa0-f47.google.com [209.85.216.47]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sBFLsKeV009957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:54:20 -0500 Received: by mail-qa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id s7so8785945qap.34 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:54:20 -0800 (PST) Sender: Phillip Susi Message-ID: <548F5877.1030507@ubuntu.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:53:59 -0500 From: Phillip Susi MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5480E939.3070702@ubuntu.com> <5484C5A7.8080601@ubuntu.com> <5488F019.80805@ubuntu.com> In-Reply-To: <5488F019.80805@ubuntu.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Raid1 -> linear conversion = destroyed data Reply-To: psusi@ubuntu.com, 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" To: LVM general discussion and development Cc: Anatoly Pugachev -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/10/2014 8:15 PM, Phillip Susi wrote: > On 12/08/2014 03:59 PM, Jason Warr wrote: >> I may have missed part of the discussion but in order to fully >> understand what is going on I'd like to know what arguments you >> used when you issued the "lvconvert --splitmirrors" command. >> There are several options to it that can influence what happens >> to the mirror members. > > The exact sequence of commands was: > > lvconvert --type raid1 -m 1 faldara/utopic /dev/sdb1 lvconvert > --splitmirrors 1 --trackchanges faldara/utopic --name utopic-backup > /dev/md0 lvconvert --splitmirrors 1 --trackchanges faldara/utopic > --name utopic-backup /dev/md0 > > The idea was to start using the new drive exclusively while keeping > a backup on the old drive. So is this on someone's radar now as a critical bug? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUj1h3AAoJENRVrw2cjl5R+DgIAJcR5QNzTboHJBxeKvo1MHoV Cc+BgMDoyfC0CPiBqMWUC0cFoKUf5nino1uHAlEFUvljmlJqFb4QtoAvRm+DEmcy h6HnhldPygYPHcjR4el+wq4Jz06Qy0v21OnqcHg9ECoYYmZqqiV3jMYEK1MU4iLU PczK7Mkdwfn0Uj3sUgmFeXHXHe0jI+zG9D8pQsU3hmImlruT0gy5JOkEI6inRoAO 1ClmWrOSZkoCJO8N22NSNgHn2bgaFBkZubfJ8UL1Frwwh1n9zt/hfs+7qOH1mvDo Q2CZzuDil+MPVGOHjk6eZZ6hW7zMqRVOoQVwcFrZlF1KQIgMcIGAFb+btNqsTxw= =0hJ5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----