In <[🔎] 537f90650907131240t37ff3fa9k2e72f498eec26163@mail.gmail.com>, Mike Castle wrote: >On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith > >Jr.<bss@iguanasuicide.net> wrote: >> pvcreate /dev/sdc1 >> pvcreate /dev/sdc2 >> pvcreate /dev/sdc3 >> pvcreate /dev/sdc4 >> vgextend $vg /dev/sdc1 >> vgextend $vg /dev/sdc2 >> vgextend $vg /dev/sdc3 >> vgextend $vg /dev/sdc4 >> pvmove /dev/sda2 >> pvmove /dev/sdb >> vgreduce $vg /dev/sda2 >> vgreduce $vg /dev/sdb >> pvremove /dev/sda2 >> pvremove /dev/sdb > >Wouldn't you want to move the first pvremove up after the first >pvmove? Otherwise the second pvmove might choose to move onto the >device you just cleared out. Sort of. I was a bit sloppy there. The last 6 lines should be rearranged: pvmove /dev/sda2 vgreduce $vg /dev/sda2 pvmove /dev/sdb vgreduce $vg /dev/sdb pvremove /dev/sda2 pvremove /dev/sdb You could also move the first pvremove up a bit. Anytime after the first vgreduce is fine. Also, the pvmove commands might be optional. ISTR that vgreduce is smart enough to perform a pvmove if the PV being removed still has PEs allocated. Finally, the pvremove command are good practice but optional. LVM will not complain if those devices suddenly disappear because they are not associated with a known VG. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.