Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Dean S. Messing wrote:
Regarding the actual problem the OP seems to have, it seems to me (not being an LVM expert) from his output that he has a Volume Group (00) that spans sda2 and sdb2, two LVs that are defined in the VG, both of which sit on sdb2, but no LV defined on sda2. Is this unusual?
I actually have two Volume Group 00's, one on each of sda2 and sdb2.
From your earlier posted output that was not clear to me (but, again,
I'm not an expert). On my F10 system, which LV organisation I hand configured after installing non-lvm on an outboard disk (because I wanted to do stuff I didn't know how to make anaconda do), I have:
[root@neuron ~]# pvscan PV /dev/sdb3 VG vg01 lvm2 [148.17 GB / 0 free] PV /dev/sdc3 VG vg01 lvm2 [148.17 GB / 0 free] PV /dev/sda2 VG vg00 lvm2 [73.77 GB / 64.00 GB free] Total: 3 [370.11 GB] / in use: 3 [370.11 GB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] [root@neuron ~]# vgscan Reading all physical volumes. This may take a while... Found volume group "vg01" using metadata type lvm2 Found volume group "vg00" using metadata type lvm2 [root@neuron ~]# lvscan ACTIVE '/dev/vg01/lv00' [117.19 GB] inherit ACTIVE '/dev/vg01/lv01' [19.53 GB] inherit ACTIVE '/dev/vg01/lv02' [19.53 GB] inherit ACTIVE '/dev/vg01/lv03' [140.09 GB] inherit ACTIVE '/dev/vg00/lv00' [9.77 GB] inherit
From my pvscan output, one might say that I have two vg01 volume
groups. In fact, I have one vg01 VG spanning sdb3 and sdc3 (both of which of identical size on identical disks---I'm running interleaved Logical Extents---similar to RAID 0.
The reason I said I thought you might have a misunderstanding is because of this statement from an earlier post of yours:
: I don't know if this comes back to the fact that the volume names on both sda2 : and sdb2 are the same, so it's only showing me the first (or last) one that it : finds?
I took "same volume names" as "same logical volume names" and assumed you were confusing LVs and VGs since I have not seen anything indicating that the actual LV names were the same. But you may have just typed "volume group" as "volume".
Haveing said all this, I understand you _do_ still have a problem:
sda2 is "live" in that it's the one that I'm using right this minute.
I may have missed it but is sda the drive that's been on the current machine all along? Has it been 465 GB all along? I ask this because I have a machine running F6 that somehow swaps the names sda and sdb. In fstab the "sdb" disk (according to df) is listed as "sda". It's running a hardware (non-fake) RAID, though, so it is not the same situation as yours.
sdb2 is somehow both present and not present, depending on how you look at it,
Your comment also seems to apply to sda2 since it is present in the df output but not in the "lvdisplay -vm" output.
but it doesn't appear to be accessible in its current form. I'm considering using fdisk to remove the partitions on it and re-create something "from new" but I'm not entirely sure how wise that would be, or exactly what I should create on there.
Well, being a researcher, I'd not do this, but rather figure out exactly what's causing the funning remapping. But you may not be the curious type. :-)
Another approach would be to just forget it and leave everything as-is until such time as I reformat and reinstall Fedora on this box (if that ever happens) at which time I think the installer would automatically do its thing and create a volume that occupies both hard drives. After all, everything is working and this extra drive is neither helping or hurting my activities. But it seems to me that a logical volume, by its nature, should be easily expandable without taking drastic measures.
Maybe you said this already, but what does the machine report (`lvdisplay -vm' and `vgdisplay -v' in particular), if you remove the added drive (sdb?).
Dean