Trouble pvmoving lv's out of a metadatacopies=0 pv
Hi!
If I try to pvmove lv's out of a pv I created using the metadatacopies 0 option, pvmove concludes that the source physical volume is not in a volume group and refuses to commence with the move.
Any ideas? Thanks.
--Janne Peltonen
Univ. of Helsinki
Signature · 1 line
Janne Peltonen <[email protected]>
Hi.
Quoted 3 lines · Janne Peltonen
If I try to pvmove lv's out of a pv I created using the metadatacopies 0 option, pvmove concludes that the source physical volume is not in a volume group and refuses to commence with the move.
Is there really no way around this bug? It's a bit annoying to have 28 physical volumes more than I actually need... This being a production system, I haven't (at least yet) wanted to take the system off line for as long as it'd take to sync the contents of the lv into another lv. (After which I could run my app on the new lvs and remove the old lvs and the old pvs.)
(See bug #252150 in bugzilla.redhat.com. I submitted the bug report last August, but this doesn't appear to be a trivial bug to squash - so I'm asking here for ways to work around it.)
Thanks for any ideas.
--Janne Peltonen
Univ. of Helsinki
Signature · 1 line
Janne Peltonen <[email protected]>
Quoted 4 lines · Janne Peltonen
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 05:34:54PM +0300, Janne Peltonen wrote:
(See bug #252150 in bugzilla.redhat.com. I submitted the bug report last August, but this doesn't appear to be a trivial bug to squash - so I'm asking here for ways to work around it.)
You'll see that bug was fixed in lvm2-2.02.30-1.el5 and so the fix will be included in 5.2, which is currently going through its testing phases.
Alasdair
Signature · 1 line
[email protected]
Quoted 8 lines · Alasdair G Kergon
Quoted 4 lines · Janne Peltonen
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 05:34:54PM +0300, Janne Peltonen wrote:
(See bug #252150 in bugzilla.redhat.com. I submitted the bug report last August, but this doesn't appear to be a trivial bug to squash - so I'm asking here for ways to work around it.)You'll see that bug was fixed in lvm2-2.02.30-1.el5 and so the fix will be included in 5.2, which is currently going through its testing phases.
Oh! I'm sorry. I took the comment #8 to mean that the bug is still present in lvm2-2.02.30-1.el5.
Thanks for clarifying things. :)
--Janne
Signature · 1 line
Janne Peltonen <[email protected]>
Quoted 2 lines · Janne Peltonen
Oh! I'm sorry. I took the comment #8 to mean that the bug is still present in lvm2-2.02.30-1.el5.
The ON_QA status means the fixed package is being tested.
Alasdair
Signature · 1 line
[email protected]