[Gllug] still wondering about lvm

Nix nix at esperi.org.uk
Sun Mar 12 02:08:48 UTC 2006


On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Adrian McMenamin suggested tentatively:
> On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 00:52 +0000, Nix wrote:
> 
>> Because VGs contain a pool of space which *may or may not* be allocated
>> to LVs, and those LVs *may or may not* be mounted (and may not even be
>> mountable: e.g. invalid snapshot volumes), and the mounted filesystems
>> *may or may not* be visible by the current process (although currently
>> most processes can see the same filesystem tree, this is not necessarily
>> the case).
> 
> Yes, I understand that point now :) PITA though cos I have to go down to
> single user and this box lives in a corner of my living room with
> nothing more attached to it than a printer and a CAT5 cable :( 

You don't have to go down to single user for a pvscan. It should be
safe enough unless your PVs are so badly buggered that, well, if
they're so buggered that pvscan can't see them, I can't imagine
how they're active now :)

-- 
`Come now, you should know that whenever you plan the duration of your
 unplanned downtime, you should add in padding for random management
 freakouts.'
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug




More information about the GLLUG mailing list