From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.12]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o9BDNC1q029762 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:23:12 -0400 Received: from mail.bmsi.com (www.bmsi.com [24.248.44.156]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o9BDN0WV009652 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:23:01 -0400 Received: from bmsred.bmsi.com (bmsred.bmsi.com [192.168.9.50]) by mail.bmsi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9BDN0Ar021342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:23:00 -0400 Received: from bmsred (bmsred [192.168.9.50]) by bmsred.bmsi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9BDN0XT025406 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:23:00 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:23:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stuart D. Gathman" In-Reply-To: <4CB30A1B.8040609@johestephan.de> Message-ID: References: <4CB2C290.7040307@johestephan.de> <4CB30A1B.8040609@johestephan.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1463799287-1973727720-1286803380=:25121" Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Lvm Strange Problem 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: To: LVM general discussion and development This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1463799287-1973727720-1286803380=:25121 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, J=EF=BF=BDrg Stephan wrote: > > It seems pretty clear that all your servers have both a snapshot and a > > live LV. At power up, they search for their disk and randomly find > > either the live or the snapshot first. You need to take the snapshots = > > out of the search path. > > > well, mostly the snapshot was removed some days after they were made. > Also the snapshots had of course different names, how could it be that > they were used? And even if this, why are all machines with the failure > bound to the same date? I believe your problem is with your SAN, not LVM (you did mention using iSC= SI). I'm talking about SAN snapshots, not LVM snapshots (although the SAN server= =20 could very well use LVM underneath). The SAN volumes have no names, just LUNs. At boot, they are searched for a matching UUID, just like directly attached physical volumes. When taking a SAN snapshot (clone), the UUID of the clone is the same as the original, whether a filesystem or VG is on the SAN LUN. --=20 Stuart D. Gathman Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154 "Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial. ---1463799287-1973727720-1286803380=:25121--