Re: backing up LVM volumes
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:40:37 -0500
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 April 2010 16:03:55 Celejar wrote:
> > I've had to give up lvm snapshots totally as
> > broken, primarily because of this (see my messages in the thread):
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=549691
>
> That is troublesome, probably to the point of actually being broken. It's
> likely that something "behind-the-scenes" in LVM is actually messing with the
> snapshot device even when it is not mounted and preventing the removal.
Makes sense to me, although I'm no expert.
> I'm fairly sure the snapshot device has to be updated whenever a write is done
> to a new LE in the original device, and it's possible *that* is causing the
> problem. I hope this issue gets some attention; I doubt it is a Debian-ism.
The mechanism is somewhat documented in the source tree at
Documentation/device-mapper/snapshot.txt, although I'd have to read it
more carefully.
> > I've also been hit by this, although it *may* be harmless (or not -
> > this stuff could really use decent documentation):
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=503268
>
> My guess on this one is one of two things:
> 1) Udev is taking a little while to unlink "secondary" names for the LVs that
> are being removed, and when lvm does its device scan it's hitting "missing"
> devices.
> 2) LVM is using device names from its cache for devices that are no longer
> present for its device scan and, again, hitting "missing" devices.
>
> In either case I think the error messages are annoying, but not indicative of
> a real problem.
Makes sense. I don't think that I've ever experienced an actual
problem obviously related to this, although it may, of course, be
symptomatic of something actually wrong with my setup.
Celejar
--
foffl.sourceforge.net - Feeds OFFLine, an offline RSS/Atom aggregator
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator
Reply to: