[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LVM and devfs (I'm intrigued)



On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:42:38AM +0000, Patrick Caulfield wrote:

[snip interesting stuff]

> 
> That's interesting.
> 
> It was always the case that if you have devfs in the kernel but not
> mounted, the partition names in /proc/partitions showed devfs names rather
> than "normal" /dev/sda* type names. LVM can't reconcile those names at all
> so it will refuse to create VGs, saying it can't find the devices.

Okay, AFAIK the kernel d-i boots with for the installation process *doesn't*
have devfs enabled, so this could explain why the initial VG and LV creation
works...
 
> I must confess I haven't tried this for some time, I know for sure that
> the LVM code that deals with this hasn't changed. (very little of LVM1 has
> changed for ages now and it's going to stay that way). But then, it also
> seems very unlikely that devfs has changed here either. I'll have a look
> at it some time and see if I can find out what's happening because it
> certainly didn't work (I remember a flurry of bug reports about it!)
> 
> 
> So, it's not a random time-bomb. If it works then it won't cause any
> corruption or later problems

That's good to know. If I can provide any further diagnostic information for
you, let me know. I only run stock Debian kernels, and I'm happy to hose my
desktop again, as it's only freshly installed from last night, so it's no
big loss. I can do a non-mirrored non-devfs install if you like.

I can confirm that /proc/partitions contains devfs names presently, and I
don't have devfsd running or devfs mounted.

regards

Andrew

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: