bug in lvm 1.0.[23]
Hello folks,
On my system there was a volume group called "storage" constructed of 3 harddrives. There were 4 LV's. Well, my harddisks started to fail and I bought new ones, +reinstalled my system due to this 'opportunity'. Well, my new drives were merged to a vg called "storage", lv's were created, everything fine. Now I pluged-in +the old drives, and, well, okay, it was party my fault by now, the old 'storage' vg was accessible, the new one wasn't. I renamed the active vg to vg0 and +rebootet in hope for two vg's to be available. There still was only one vg active, the old one. Suprisingly it was accessible under the new *and* the old name. +Rather strange. I pluged the old disks of, and started my pc, to discover that the new vg was accessible under those two names, too. I could rename them and work +with the old and the new vg, but the point is that I have 4 vgs now in my system - I only should see two.
It's a nasty bug and one shouldn't be so dumb as I was, but I think some sanity checks in the code wouldn't be bad.
The old vg was created with lvm 1.0.2 on 2.4.16 or so and the new system was 2.4.18-rc1 with lvm 1.0.3.
Signature · 4 lines
Regards, Wiktor Wodecki | http://johoho.eggheads.org [email protected] | IRC: Johoho@IrcNET
Quoted 4 lines · Wiktor Wodecki
Well, my new drives were merged to a vg called "storage", lv's were created, everything fine. Now I pluged-in the old drives, and, well, okay, it was party my fault by now, the old 'storage' vg was accessible, the new one wasn't. I renamed the active vg to vg0 and rebootet in
Quoted 8 lines
hope for two vg's to be available. There still was only one vg active, the old one. Suprisingly it was accessible under the new *and* the old name. Rather strange. I pluged the old disks of, and started my pc, to discover that the new vg was accessible under those two names, too. I could rename them and work with the old and the new vg, but the point is that I have 4 vgs now in my system - I only should see two. It's a nasty bug and one shouldn't be so dumb as I was, but I think some sanity checks in the code wouldn't be bad.
Probably just old devices in /dev. Just delete /dev/storage and /dev/vg0 and re-run vgscan. It should set it up properly now.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/
begin Andreas Dilger quotation:
Quoted 3 lines · Wiktor Wodecki
Probably just old devices in /dev. Just delete
/dev/storageand/dev/vg0and re-run vgscan. It should set it up properly now.
the point was that the system doesn't get it if I plug-in two vg's with the same name. That's the bug :-)
Signature · 4 lines
Regards, Wiktor Wodecki | http://johoho.eggheads.org [email protected] | IRC: Johoho@IrcNET