Search Results

Search found 398 results on 16 pages for 'lvm'.

Page 5/16 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Can someone implement LVM on an existing single-hard disk system ?

    - by jfmessier
    I am using SuSE Linux (10) and I am considering expanding the available disk, without resizing an existing partition (which is not easy to do on a VM). Instead, I want to create another virtual disk, and add it in a new LVM volume, which would include the existing disk, and this new one, in a seamless single mount point. We are using VMware vServer 4, under Lab Manager and Virtual Centre. Does SuSE support LVM in version 10 ? Thanks :-)

    Read the article

  • How to deal with LVM encryption on remote restart?

    - by hydroparadise
    Is there a way to handle the LVM mounting password remotely? This is usually presented during boot on the main console (where the machine physically resides at). I am able to ssh in during the prompt, but other services (like http, ftp, etc) will not run until the password is succesfully entered in at boot. However, ssh does not show the same password prompt that master console shows. How do I enter the LVM password remotely on boot?

    Read the article

  • Why is mkfs overwriting the LUKS encryption header on LVM on RAID partitions on Ubuntu 12.04?

    - by Starchy
    I'm trying to setup a couple of LUKS-encrypted partitions to be mounted after boot-time on a new Ubuntu server which was installed with LVM on top of software RAID. After running cryptsetup luksFormat, the LUKS header is clearly visible on the volume. After running any flavor of mkfs, the header is overwritten (which does not happen on other systems that were setup without LVM), and cryptsetup will no longer recognize the device as a LUKS device. # cryptsetup -y --cipher aes-cbc-essiv:sha256 --key-size 256 luksFormat /dev/dm-1 WARNING! ======== This will overwrite data on /dev/dm-1 irrevocably. Are you sure? (Type uppercase yes): YES Enter LUKS passphrase: Verify passphrase: # hexdump -C /dev/dm-1|head -n5 00000000 4c 55 4b 53 ba be 00 01 61 65 73 00 00 00 00 00 |LUKS....aes.....| 00000010 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 |................| 00000020 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 63 62 63 2d 65 73 73 69 |........cbc-essi| 00000030 76 3a 73 68 61 32 35 36 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 |v:sha256........| 00000040 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 73 68 61 31 00 00 00 00 |........sha1....| # cryptsetup luksOpen /dev/dm-1 web2-var # mkfs.ext4 /dev/mapper/web2-var [..snip..] Creating journal (32768 blocks): done Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done # hexdump -C /dev/dm-1|head -n5 # cryptsetup luksClose /dev/mapper/web2-var 00000000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 |................| * 00000400 00 40 5d 00 00 88 74 01 66 a0 12 00 17 f2 6d 01 |.@]...t.f.....m.| 00000410 f5 3f 5d 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 |.?].............| 00000420 00 80 00 00 00 80 00 00 00 20 00 00 00 00 00 00 |......... ......| # cryptsetup luksOpen /dev/dm-1 web2-var Device /dev/dm-1 is not a valid LUKS device. I have also tried mkfs.ext2 with the same result. Based on setups I've done successfully on Debian and Ubuntu (but not LVM or Ubuntu 12.04), it's hard to see why this is failing.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to do something like LVM over NFS?

    - by warren
    I realize that since NFS is not block-level, LVM can't be used directly. However: is there a way to combine multiple NFS exports (from, say, 3 servers) into one mount point on a different server? Specifically, I'd like to be able to do this on RHEL 4 (or 5, and re-export the combined mount to my RHEL 4 server). expansion The reason I pegged lvm is that I want a bunch of exported mounts (servera:/mnt/export, serverb:/mnt/export, serverc:/mnt/export, etc) to all mount at /mnt/space so that my /mnt/space on this server (serverx) as one large filesystem. Yes, I know that re-exporting is generally a Bad Thing™ but thought it might work, if there was a way to accomplish this on a newer release as opposed to an older one From reading the unionfs docs, it appears that I can't use it over a remote connection - have I misread it? More accurately, since Union FS merges the contents of multiple branches, but makes them appear as one, it doesn't seem to go in reverse: I'm trying to mount a bunch of NFS points in a merged fashion, then write to them - not caring where data goes, a la LVM .

    Read the article

  • Linux: Encryption of a physical LVM volume doesn't imply encryption of its logical subvolumes?

    - by java.is.for.desktop
    Hello, everyone! I installed OpenSuse one year ago on my notebook. I created all partitions except /boot inside an LVM partition. I enabled encryption for it during setup. The system asked me a password on each boot later. Everything seemed fine... But one day I wanted to cancel the boot process and did it with SysRq REISUB. During entering this combination, the system suddenly continued to boot without any password being entered. I had no /home and no swap, but / was mounted! I checked multiple times, it was inside an "encrypted" physical LVM volume. Later I found out that OpenSuse can't encrypt / at all. There is an option to enable encryption for each logical volume, and indeed it fails for /. Later I tried Fedora. The options during partitioning were misleading by same means. I could enable "encryption" of a physical volume and each logical subvolume. With the exception that Fedora actually allowed to encrypt /. Question: What's the point of setting up "encryption" for a physical LVM volume, when it doesn't imply (real) encryption of its logical subvolumes? Did I get something wrong in this whole concept?

    Read the article

  • What is the effect on LVM snapshot size when a file block is rewritten with it's original contents?

    - by NevilleDNZ
    I'm exploring using LVM snapshot's to off site incremental archives from a snapshot "master" file system. In essence: simply copy across only the files on the "master" that have changed since the last incremental copy to the "archive". Then snapshot the "archive" to retain the incremental. I am a bit puzzled as to the block usage behaviour of the archive's own incremental snapshot. I'm expecting that LVM is not smart enough to know that the "file block" is actually unchanged, and the a new copy will be allocated and written for the fresh "archive" file system. Can anyone confirm this, or point me to a document/page that gives some hints? BTW: the OS hard disk cache, hard disk physical cache and hard disk itself also doesn't need to do any actual "disk writes" as the "disk block" likewise is unnecessary. Any pointers to discussion of this style of optimisation would also be ineresting.

    Read the article

  • Do you lose everything when you have a hard disk failure in a multi-hard disk LVM that does NOT use RAID?

    - by user72630
    I'm debating about using LVM for a media/file server because I would like to combine multiple physical hard disks into one volume. I do not wish to use any RAID in my LVM so my question is: If one of the multiple hard disks in my volume were to go down would I lose all my data or would I just lose the data that was stored on that individual disk? Also, if I were to just lose the data on the individual disk, would it be as simple as replacing that disk and restoring what was on it from a backup to recover? Thanks everyone.

    Read the article

  • Can You Specify Where LVM Snapshots Are (Initially) Stored?

    - by bottles
    Disclaimer: this is my first time using lvm. Upon RTFM, it appears that LVM snapshots are automatically stored in the same directory as the original logical volume. In my case, that would mean the /dev directory. This isn't very nice, because there's not enough disk space in there for me to store a large snapshot. So when I run a command like lvcreate --size 1G --snapshot --name snapshot /dev/lvmData/usr, I need an additional 1G of space free in /dev? Is there any way to specify a different directory in which to store my snapshot?

    Read the article

  • Does /boot safe on top of a lvm LV (logical volume)?

    - by fantoman
    Title already asked the question. More specifically, I read in some documents that logical volumes are nice in general but not for /boot in a linux system. They say that bootloaders don't understand LVM volumes, so create a separate partition for /boot out of lvm. I recently installed Ubuntu server (9.10) for my home server, but by default /boot is created in the LVM. Everything is fine now, but I am not sure it is safe to use /boot in LVM. Second question is do I really need a physical partition (volume)(pv) for /boot or is it equally fine if I put it into a logical volume (lv) on top of a single shared volume group. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • copying an lvm partition to a smaller disk, and renaming volume groups.

    - by dlamblin
    I was trying to shrink a vmdk (VMWare disk image) file to be as small as possible, and found two recommendations. The first is to cat /dev/zero into the fs then delete it, and run VMWare tools' shrink. This works okay. The second is to copy everything into a new vmdk. I went the second route. I did not use dd because I actaully want to use as few blocks as possible, instead of having a block-by-clok copy. Any unlinked files will still have blocks that aren't zeroed out. Secondly the centos image was mostly lvm, except for the boot partition, and my target was going to be 4gb instead of 8gb. I did use dd for the first 40mb to get the boot blocks and partition copied. I then used parted to create an identical primary boot, and smaller primary lvm. Then I used pvcreate on that device sdb2, vgcreate, and lvcreate to create a root and swap. I used mkfs.ext3fs on the root partition and then rsync -av / /2root excluding /proc /sys /2root /dev. So far everything went fine. My problem is that: The result is 2.7 GB while the source was 2.1 GB. This is weird to me. The second vgroup is called VolGroup01, while the original was called VolGroup00. How can I rename the VolGroup01 to VolGroup00 and swap it out after all this?

    Read the article

  • Linux Software RAID1: How to boot after (physically) removing /dev/sda? (LVM, mdadm, Grub2)

    - by flight
    A server set up with Debian 6.0/squeeze. During the squeeze installation, I configured the two 500GB SATA disks (/dev/sda and /dev/sdb) as a RAID1 (managed with mdadm). The RAID keeps a 500 GB LVM volume group (vg0). In the volume group, there's a single logical volume (lv0). vg0-lv0 is formatted with extfs3 and mounted as root partition (no dedicated /boot partition). The system boots using GRUB2. In normal use, the systems boots fine. Also, when I tried and removed the second SATA drive (/dev/sdb) after a shutdown, the system came up without problem, and after reconnecting the drive, I was able to --re-add /dev/sdb1 to the RAID array. But: After removing the first SATA drive (/dev/sda), the system won't boot any more! A GRUB welcome message shows up for a second, then the system reboots. I tried to install GRUB2 manually on /dev/sdb ("grub-install /dev/sdb"), but that doesn't help. Appearently squeeze fails to set up GRUB2 to launch from the second disk when the first disk is removed, which seems to be quite an essential feature when running this kind of Software RAID1, isn't it? At the moment, I'm lost whether this is a problem with GRUB2, with LVM or with the RAID setup. Any hints?

    Read the article

  • When using software RAID and LVM on Linux, which IO scheduler and readahead settings are honored?

    - by andrew311
    In the case of multiple layers (physical drives - md - dm - lvm), how do the schedulers, readahead settings, and other disk settings interact? Imagine you have several disks (/dev/sda - /dev/sdd) all part of a software RAID device (/dev/md0) created with mdadm. Each device (including physical disks and /dev/md0) has its own setting for IO scheduler (changed like so) and readahead (changed using blockdev). When you throw in things like dm (crypto) and LVM you add even more layers with their own settings. For example, if the physical device has a read ahead of 128 blocks and the RAID has a readahead of 64 blocks, which is honored when I do a read from /dev/md0? Does the md driver attempt a 64 block read which the physical device driver then translates to a read of 128 blocks? Or does the RAID readahead "pass-through" to the underlying device, resulting in a 64 block read? The same kind of question holds for schedulers? Do I have to worry about multiple layers of IO schedulers and how they interact, or does the /dev/md0 effectively override underlying schedulers? In my attempts to answer this question, I've dug up some interesting data on schedulers and tools which might help figure this out: Linux Disk Scheduler Benchmarking from Google blktrace - generate traces of the i/o traffic on block devices Relevant Linux kernel mailing list thread

    Read the article

  • How to setup whole-disk encryption with dual boot on a MacBook Pro (generation 9,2 with 12.04)

    - by blueyed
    I can install Ubuntu 12.04 on the MacBook when using the "noapic" kernel boot option, using the alternate amd64+mac image (from http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/12.04/release/ ). But after installation the screen turn sblack after trying to boot "Windows" (as named in the boot menu that shows up when holding Option/Alt during startup). I want to use whole-disk encryption and given that only one free partition is available, I have setup LVM to do so: - vg0 contains bootlv and cryptlv - in cryptlv I have setup encryption with another LVM volume group (vg1, which holds swaplv, rootlv and homelv) I have not installed Grub during installation (because I was not sure about the partition) and when trying to install it later on /dev/sda4 (which contains the outer LVM) it complained that it could not determine the file system, and --force did not help either. The black screen / behavior looks similar to starting the installer without enabling the noapic option.

    Read the article

  • Simple Ubuntu Server - Expanding disk space - adding a new drive LVM, RAID0 existing setup - how?

    - by NightWolf
    I have a 1TB ext4 partition mounted at / with all my data and Ubuntu 11.04 (natty) installed. Now this drive is almost full (I used it as a database server for some processing). RAID0 is ok, I can take a failure (touch wood). But I need a way to grow this partition. I have a new 1TB drive I want to add, however as my Ubuntu boot and all data is on the one partition I'm not sure how I can go about setting up a RAID0 or LVM array without loosing all my data. So the question is how can I extend my existing ext4 partition over two physical drives without losing data? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to Manage and Use LVM (Logical Volume Management) in Ubuntu

    - by Justin Garrison
    In our previous article we told you what LVM is and what you may want to use it for, and today we are going to walk you through some of the key management tools of LVM so you will be confident when setting up or expanding your installation. As stated before, LVM is a abstraction layer between your operating system and physical hard drives. What that means is your physical hard drives and partitions are no longer tied to the hard drives and partitions they reside on. Rather, the hard drives and partitions that your operating system sees can be any number of separate hard drives pooled together or in a software RAID Latest Features How-To Geek ETC Inspire Geek Love with These Hilarious Geek Valentines How to Integrate Dropbox with Pages, Keynote, and Numbers on iPad RGB? CMYK? Alpha? What Are Image Channels and What Do They Mean? How to Recover that Photo, Picture or File You Deleted Accidentally How To Colorize Black and White Vintage Photographs in Photoshop How To Get SSH Command-Line Access to Windows 7 Using Cygwin How to Kid Proof Your Computer’s Power and Reset Buttons Microsoft’s Windows Media Player Extension Adds H.264 Support Back to Google Chrome Android Notifier Pushes Android Notices to Your Desktop Dead Space 2 Theme for Chrome and Iron Carl Sagan and Halo Reach Mashup – We Humans are Capable of Greatness [Video] Battle the Necromorphs Once Again on Your Desktop with the Dead Space 2 Theme for Windows 7

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 13.10 - How to disable LVM and cryptsetup? cryptsetup: evms_activate is not available

    - by NeverEndingQueue
    I am trying to remove whole drive encryption from my Ubuntu installation. I've run Ubuntu from Live CD, mounted crypt partition and copied it to another partition /dev/sda3. sudo cryptsetup luksOpen /dev/sda5 crypt1 sudo dd if=/dev/ubuntu-vg/root of=/dev/sda3 bs=1M After that I've run boot-repair: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Boot-Repair Added entry to /etc/fstab: UUID=<uuid> / ext4 errors=remount-ro 0 1 Of course I've replaced with blkid result of my /dev/sda3. I've also deleted overlayfs and tmpfs lines from /etc/fstab. (I've just compared it to content of /etc/fstab in non-encrypted Ubuntu installation and could not find overlayfs and tmpfs). I've chrooted from LiveCD into my system and rebuilt initramfs: http://blog.leenix.co.uk/2012/07/evmsactivate-is-not-available-on-boot.html I've also removed cryptsetup using apt-get remove. Basically I can easily mount my system partition from Live CD (without setting up the encryption and LVM stuff), but can not boot from it. Instead I see: cryptsetup: evms_activate is not available When I've chosen the Recovery mode I've seen this: Begin: Mounting root file system ... Begin: Running /script/local-top ... Reading all physical volumes. This may take a while ... No volume groups found cryptsetup: evms_activate is not available Begin: Waiting for encrytpted source device ... My /etc/crypttab is empty. I am pretty sure that system tries to find encrypted partition, search for LVMs etc. Do you have ideas what could be the problem or how can I fix it? Thanks

    Read the article

  • mdadm lvm and ext4 slowness - How can I speed it up?

    - by beatbreaker
    I can't figure out why I'm getting such terrible times out of my mdadm and in particular the lvm partitions in it. I made the raid: mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=5 --chunk=1024 --raid-devices=4 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md0 : active raid5 sda1[0] sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sdb1[1] 2930279424 blocks level 5, 1024k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU] I then created the physical volume, volume group, and logical volumes, I then formatted the logical volumes to ext4 using the following commands I got from here: http://busybox.net/~aldot/mkfs_stride.html mkfs.ext3 -b 4096 -E stride=256,stripe-width=768 /dev/datavg/blah Now I'm confused, I had these lvs running real quick before in mdadm but now that I've 'optimized' everything it's slower, eg, before: /dev/datavg/lv_audio: Timing buffered disk reads: 598 MB in 3.01 seconds = 198.85 MB/sec but now after: /dev/datavg/audio: Timing buffered disk reads: 198 MB in 3.00 seconds = 65.96 MB/sec That's pitiful! What's happened here? Did I not follow the instructions correctly? Can i reshape the ext4 partitons to default back to what they were? (I used defaults before and they were fine!)

    Read the article

  • where on disk is space allocated for new files inside LVM lv with ext4 file system?

    - by Jost
    I run a multi-disk server with LVM2. Several large disks serve as LVM2 physical volumes for one volume group, containing one logical volume formatted with ext4. Nothing fancy, just your standard linear setup. Recently an additional, very small disk was added as physical volume to that volume group and I expanded both the logical volume, and the ext4 file system therein onto that disk. This lv is used to store incremental backups using rsync and is only about 30% full, there have rarely been any files deleted from it, only incremental writes. Now this new HDD I added to the pre-existing volume group has unexpectedly died on me, and the volume group won't come up because it is missing one physical volume. As fate will have it, this WAS the "in an event of catastrophic failure on the primary server"-backup, the event happened, the boss is not happy, so this kinda has to work... According to this (Part 3): http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/appnote/19386.html it is possible to trick LVM into starting anyway by creating a new pv with identical metadata to the failed disk, which will make the volume accessible, but of course leave giant holes in the file system. I have'n tried it yet, because it involves repairing (writing to) the file system which eliminates the possibility of trying other things if it fails. Now my question is: How does this setup actually allocate disk space for new data? Is it allocated linearly from beginning to end of PVs, in the order they were added to the vg? Is it striped somehow in order to increase performance/balance load? since this defective disk was added only later to an existing lvm2 vg and lv, containing a half-empty ext4, what are the chances that there was never any data written to the defective disk? In other words: what are the chances of recovering all my data, even without the defective disk, by just starting the volume group as-is? Am I about to go spend $1500 on having 250GB of empty space recovered when I send the defective disk in for repair? Is there a way to check without mounting the file system and opening the files, hoping they contain something other than zeros? (comparing addresses of used data blocks inside ext4 to address ranges that were on the missing pv, something like that, preferably easy to automate) I know bitwise-copying the entire lv into an image file before trying to repair the ext4 would probably be a good idea, but since this lv is very large and I just suffered major file system failure on several systems it is probably a luxury I don't have... Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Why is the latency on one LVM volume consistently higher?

    - by David Schmitt
    I've got a server with LVM over RAID1. One of the volumes has a consistently higher IO latency (as measured by the diskstats_latency munin plugin) than the other volumes from the same group. As you can see, the dark orange /root volume has consistently high IO latency. Actually ten times the average latency of the physical devices. It also has the highest Min and Max values. My main concern are not the peaks, which occur under high load, but the constant load on (semi-)idle. The server is running Debian Squeeze with the VServer kernel and has four VServer containers and one KVM guest. I'm looking for ways to fix - or at least understand - this situation. Here're some parts of the system configuration: root@kvmhost2:~# df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/system--host-root 19G 3.8G 14G 22% / tmpfs 16G 0 16G 0% /lib/init/rw udev 16G 224K 16G 1% /dev tmpfs 16G 0 16G 0% /dev/shm /dev/md0 942M 37M 858M 5% /boot /dev/mapper/system--host-isos 28G 19G 8.1G 70% /srv/isos /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_a 30G 23G 6.0G 79% /var/lib/vservers/a /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_b 5.0G 594M 4.1G 13% /var/lib/vservers/b /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_c 5.0G 555M 4.2G 12% /var/lib/vservers/c /dev/loop0 4.4G 4.4G 0 100% /media/debian-6.0.0-amd64-DVD-1 /dev/loop1 4.4G 4.4G 0 100% /media/debian-6.0.0-i386-DVD-1 /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_d 74G 55G 16G 78% /var/lib/vservers/d root@kvmhost2:~# cat /proc/mounts rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0 none /sys sysfs rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime 0 0 none /proc proc rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime 0 0 none /dev devtmpfs rw,relatime,size=16500836k,nr_inodes=4125209,mode=755 0 0 none /dev/pts devpts rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000 0 0 /dev/mapper/system--host-root / ext3 rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered 0 0 tmpfs /lib/init/rw tmpfs rw,nosuid,relatime,mode=755 0 0 tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime 0 0 fusectl /sys/fs/fuse/connections fusectl rw,relatime 0 0 /dev/md0 /boot ext3 rw,sync,relatime,errors=continue,data=ordered 0 0 /dev/mapper/system--host-isos /srv/isos ext3 rw,relatime,errors=continue,data=ordered 0 0 /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_a /var/lib/vservers/a ext3 rw,relatime,errors=continue,data=ordered 0 0 /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_b /var/lib/vservers/b ext3 rw,relatime,errors=continue,data=ordered 0 0 /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_c /var/lib/vservers/c ext3 rw,relatime,errors=continue,data=ordered 0 0 /dev/loop0 /media/debian-6.0.0-amd64-DVD-1 iso9660 ro,relatime 0 0 /dev/loop1 /media/debian-6.0.0-i386-DVD-1 iso9660 ro,relatime 0 0 /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_d /var/lib/vservers/d ext3 rw,relatime,errors=continue,data=ordered 0 0 root@kvmhost2:~# cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] md1 : active raid1 sda2[0] sdb2[1] 975779968 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] 979840 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> root@kvmhost2:~# iostat -x Linux 2.6.32-5-vserver-amd64 (kvmhost2) 06/28/2012 _x86_64_ (8 CPU) avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 3.09 0.14 2.92 1.51 0.00 92.35 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sda 23.25 161.12 7.46 37.90 855.27 1596.62 54.05 0.13 2.80 1.76 8.00 sdb 22.82 161.36 7.36 37.66 850.29 1596.62 54.35 0.54 12.01 1.80 8.09 md0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.02 38.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md1 0.00 0.00 53.55 198.16 768.01 1585.25 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-0 0.00 0.00 0.48 20.21 16.70 161.71 8.62 0.26 12.72 0.77 1.60 dm-1 0.00 0.00 3.62 10.03 28.94 80.21 8.00 0.19 13.68 1.59 2.17 dm-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.17 0.00 9.64 6.42 0.00 dm-3 0.00 0.00 6.73 0.41 53.87 3.28 8.00 0.02 3.44 0.12 0.09 dm-4 0.00 0.00 17.45 18.18 139.57 145.47 8.00 0.42 11.81 0.76 2.69 dm-5 0.00 0.00 2.50 46.38 120.50 371.07 10.06 0.69 14.20 0.46 2.26 dm-6 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.67 0.81 12.53 0.01 75.53 18.58 0.22 dm-7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.99 0.00 11.24 9.45 0.00 dm-8 0.00 0.00 22.69 102.76 407.25 822.09 9.80 0.97 7.71 0.39 4.95 dm-9 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.50 0.62 8.00 0.07 481.23 11.72 0.16 root@kvmhost2:~# ls -l /dev/mapper/ total 0 crw------- 1 root root 10, 59 May 11 11:19 control lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:08 system--host-kvm1 -> ../dm-4 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:08 system--host-kvm2 -> ../dm-3 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:06 system--host-isos -> ../dm-2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 May 11 11:19 system--host-root -> ../dm-0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:06 system--host-swap -> ../dm-9 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:06 system--host-vs_d -> ../dm-8 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:06 system--host-vs_b -> ../dm-6 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:06 system--host-vs_c -> ../dm-7 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:06 system--host-vs_a -> ../dm-5 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:08 system--host-kvm3 -> ../dm-1 root@kvmhost2:~#

    Read the article

  • Recover LVM2 volume group after one HDD failed

    - by Bernd
    I had two HDDs, each one containing a LVM partition which formed a volume group. Then I had two LVs, one for my / directory and one for my /home/ directory. Yesterday where I had my / dir failed. I'm trying to recover at least my /home/ dir. What I've done so far: Boot a live system Extract LVM2 metadata from the working HDD using dd Copy metadata to /etc/lvm/backup/vg0 Now I'm trying to do this: pvcreate --restore /etc/lvm/backup/vg0 --uuid "[uuid of my working hdd]" /dev/sdb2 But I always get: Couldn't find device with uuid '[uuid of broken hdd]'. Couldn't find device with uuid '[uuid of working hdd]'. Device /dev/sdb2 not found (or ignored by filtering). I confirmed that /dev/sdb2 exists and I've commented out all filtering settings from /etc/lvm/lvm.conf so I don't know what might be causing pvcreate not to find the device. So: What might be the problem? Is it even possible to restore this partition? (As I'm writing this I'm starting to think it's impossible D:) Edit: Okay, looks like I've got it figured out. I was using a Ubuntu 8.10 CD (yeah, I know it's not supported anymore) and it seems that was the problem. When I started from a Ubuntu 10.04 CD everything worked 'fine', I could mount my LVM partitions partially without problems. (Will answer the question in 4 hours. But if anyone has still got some hints/tips, please share! :)

    Read the article

  • Almost All Xenserver Logical Volumes Disappeared - Recovery?

    - by Alex
    We had a hard disc crash of one of two hard discs in a software raid with a LVM on top. The server is running Citrix xenserver. On the hard disk which is still intact, the volume group gets detected well, but only one LV is left. (some hashes replaced by "x") # lvdisplay --- Logical volume --- LV Name /dev/VG_XenStorage-x-x-x-x-408b91acdcae/MGT VG Name VG_XenStorage-x-x-x-x-408b91acdcae LV UUID x-x-x-x-x-x-vQmZ6C LV Write Access read/write LV Status available # open 0 LV Size 4.00 MiB Current LE 1 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 253:0 root@rescue ~ # vgdisplay --- Volume group --- VG Name VG_XenStorage-x-x-x-x-408b91acdcae System ID Format lvm2 Metadata Areas 1 Metadata Sequence No 4 VG Access read/write VG Status resizable MAX LV 0 Cur LV 1 Open LV 0 Max PV 0 Cur PV 1 Act PV 1 VG Size 698.62 GiB PE Size 4.00 MiB Total PE 178848 Alloc PE / Size 1 / 4.00 MiB Free PE / Size 178847 / 698.62 GiB VG UUID x-x-x-x-x-x-53w0kL I could understand if a full physical volume is lost - but why only the logical volumes? Is there any explanation for this? Is there any way to recover the logical volumes? EDIT We are here in a rescue system. The problem is that the whole server does not boot (GRUB error 22) What we are trying to do is to access the root filesystem. But everything was in the LVM. We have only this: (parted) print Model: ATA SAMSUNG HD753LJ (scsi) Disk /dev/sdb: 750GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 32.3kB 750GB 750GB primary boot, lvm And this 750GB LVM volume is exactly what we see on top. edit2 Output of vgcfgrestore, but from the rescue system, as there is no root to chroot to. # vgcfgrestore --list VG_XenStorage-x-b4b0-x-x-408b91acdcae File: /etc/lvm/archive/VG_XenStorage-x-x-x-x-408b91acdcae_00000.vg VG name: VG_XenStorage-x-x-x-x-408b91acdcae Description: Created *before* executing '/sbin/vgscan --ignorelockingfailure --mknodes' Backup Time: Fri Jun 28 23:53:20 2013 File: /etc/lvm/backup/VG_XenStorage-x-x-x-x-408b91acdcae VG name: VG_XenStorage-x-x-x-x-408b91acdcae Description: Created *after* executing '/sbin/vgscan --ignorelockingfailure --mknodes' Backup Time: Fri Jun 28 23:53:20 2013

    Read the article

  • how to resize an encrypted logical volume?

    - by Nirmik
    I installed Ubuntu with encryption and LVM on my entire haddisk... Now I want to resize it. How do I do This... Following this link gave me errors on step 2 - How to resize a LVM partition? error ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo e2fsck -f /dev/sda5 e2fsck 1.42.5 (29-Jul-2012) ext2fs_open2: Bad magic number in super-block e2fsck: Superblock invalid, trying backup blocks... e2fsck: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/sda5 The superblock could not be read or does not describe a correct ext2 filesystem. If the device is valid and it really contains an ext2 filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock: e2fsck -b 8193 what do I do?

    Read the article

  • New install preserving home directory

    - by john francis lee
    I have 32bit 11.10 installed on an LVM disk taking up all 500gb, and I would like to install 64bit 12.04 on top ... preserving the data in my home directory. I used to do that pre-LVM by just not formatting the partition mounted as /home, installing over / and /usr and formatting /tmp ... but now I don't recognize the partition table. I've never had much luck with 'upograde' and so I just install afresh when I want t new version. Surely I can do what I want, can't I?

    Read the article

  • Run fstrim from LiveCD

    - by CharlesW
    A few years ago I installed Ubuntu 10.04 with LVM + LUKS on a system with SSD, TRIM was not enabled. Now I want to install Ubuntu 12.04 on the same SSD. I have found a guide explaining how to enable TRIM on Ubuntu 12.04 with LVM + LUKS, but before installing the new system, I want to clean out all the "marked for deletion" data generated under Ubuntu 10.04, to make the disk fast as new. My plan is to boot a Ubuntu 12.04 LiveCD and create a new ext4 filesystem on the SSD, then mount the filesystem and run fstrim on it. After rebooting the LiveCD I will install the system as normal, and enable TRIM. Can anybody say if this will work?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >