[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       opensolaris-lvm-discuss
Subject:    [lvm-discuss] lvm Solaris 9 9/05  and 146 GB  scsi disk in V240
From:       Sanjay.Nadkarni () sun ! com (Sanjay Nadkarni)
Date:       2005-10-07 16:43:14
Message-ID: 434708C5.80609 () sun ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


Are these FC or regular disks ? And when you say they disappear what 
exactly does that mean ? Does SVM complain that could start because 
mddbs failed ? Are the entries there in /kernel/drv/md.conf ? 

-Sanjay

Steve Peng wrote:

> Lars Tunkrans wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>  I experienced  a  disasterous lvm  installation failure today.  On 
>> solaris 9 9/05 SPARC V240  with 2 * 73 Gb disk  and 2 * 146 GB disk
>>  By placing  the metadb  in the last  128 MB on the " new"  146 GB  
>> disks  on a  SUNFIRE V240,  and re-booting the server .   When LVM  
>> tries to activate  itself on powerup , all metadb  copies  vanish  
>> into the great bit-bucket  never to be seen again. 
>>   I thought about this for awhile ...   Then I  reinstalled the 
>> metadbs again  on only my two  73 GB disk.   this time lvm behaved 
>> normally.
>>   Question :  is LVM  vunerable if  metadb's  are placed  after the 
>> 137 GB boundary on a disk      I will try  next week to place the 
>> metadbs  first on the 146 GB disk and see if they are stable  in that 
>> configuration.
>> Regards
>> //Lars
>> This message posted from opensolaris.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> lvm-discuss mailing list
>> lvm-discuss@opensolaris.org
>>  
>>
> It will be interesting to know what you find out.  It really doesn't 
> matter where
> you put the mddb as long as SVM can access the partition.  Did you see 
> any disk error during the reboot?  You can check out /var/adm/messages 
> or run dmesg.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> lvm-discuss mailing list
> lvm-discuss@opensolaris.org


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]