From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dhcp131-147.brq.redhat.com (dhcp131-215.brq.redhat.com [10.34.131.215]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u4V7v1aI028910 for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 03:57:01 -0400 Resent-To: linux-lvm@redhat.com Resent-Message-ID: References: <574CB690.5030401@partidopirata.com.ar> From: Ondrej Kozina Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:53:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <574CB690.5030401@partidopirata.com.ar> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] [dm-crypt] LVM on LUKS: volumes missing Reply-To: linux-lvm@redhat.com 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: fauno Cc: dm-crypt@saout.de Hi fauno, provided the driver was unlocked successfully it seems unrelated to cryptsetup/LUKS to me. Could we move the discussion to lvm mail list? On 05/30/2016 11:54 PM, fauno wrote: > Hi, maybe I'm too shocked but I couldn't find anything on this issue :) > > I have a fully encrypted HD using the LVM on LUKS method from > ArchWiki[^0], with the LUKS header and key file on an external device. > > Today I started having some disk failures (root remounted ro, xfs > partition giving errors), and after I decided to reboot to run fsck, I > can't find anything. Could you paste here output of pvscan -vvvv --cache /dev/mapper/insert_the_unlocked_device_name? Together with your /etc/lvm/lvm.conf file? If it's a device with rootfs we're talking about you will most probably have to extract /etc/lvm/lvm.conf file from initramfs image. Well, generally, if disk sectors accommodating PV header are damaged, lvm2 won't recognise the device... > > When the encrypted partition is opened, I don't see any errors, not even > on dmesg, but LVM can't find any volume. They're just missing. > > Is there anything I can do? Thanks! > > FWIW I had the same issue with another HD a few months back, though it > didn't had physical errors. It didn't had anything important so I > wasn't worried. Ok, try same approach as above for this drive. Regards Ondrej