Driver vs. Not Active Groups
I am attempting to implement lvm (Linux kernel 2.4.5 Slackware 8.0) using 2 drives for linux (lilo uses MBR on a 3rd). After partitioning the drive, which will become (via copy from current drive) the new home for the system under lvm (/, /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp, /home ext2fs), I pvcreated all ok. When attempting to vgcreate, the volume groups were not activated with vgcreate and vgchange -a y has no effect either.
When querying alt.os.linux.slackware all I got was suggestions to install
2.4.18 plus 1.0 lvm. I would like not to do this, especially since lvm2
is coming out soon, if I can so as not to introduce further idiosyncrasies (this is a test box). You would aid my decisioning if you can tell me:
is it ok to have an lvm driver (per /proc/lvm/global) at 0.9.1_beta2 when
the lvm tools appear to be (per pvcreate -V) 0.9.1_beta6? Could this the
cause of inactivity with vgcreate?
Appreciatively,
Ron Riese
Quoted 11 lines · ronr
I am attempting to implement lvm (Linux kernel 2.4.5 Slackware 8.0) using 2 drives for linux (lilo uses MBR on a 3rd). After partitioning the drive, which will become (via copy from current drive) the new home for the system under lvm (/, /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp, /home ext2fs), I pvcreated all ok. When attempting to vgcreate, the volume groups were not activated with vgcreate and vgchange -a y has no effect either.
When querying alt.os.linux.slackware all I got was suggestions to install
2.4.18 plus 1.0 lvm. I would like not to do this, especially since lvm2
Quoted 8 lines
is coming out soon, if I can so as not to introduce further idiosyncrasies (this is a test box). You would aid my decisioning if you can tell me:
is it ok to have an lvm driver (per/proc/lvm/global) at 0.9.1_beta2 when
the lvm tools appear to be (per pvcreate -V) 0.9.1_beta6? Could this the
cause of inactivity with vgcreate?
Have you created any volumes with lvcreate ?
- Joe