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

Re: copying lvm with the same name



Rick Stevens wrote:
<Big Snipolla>
> Perhaps we should take this off-list--I don't know that we want to
> occupy the list's bandwidth with the back-and-forth of geting this
> sorted.  When it's fixed, we could post a summary on what we did for
> those who are interested.

I, for one, would like you to _leave it on the list_ as I am following
and learning.  With all the, um, "philosophical discussions" that
spend bandwidth, it is actually refreshing to see the list being used
for "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using
Fedora."

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?

There also seems to be some confusion between "Volume Group" and
"Volume" (ie. LV), which is the root of some misunderstanding on the
OP's part.

Again, I may be all wet on this but that's what his output and
comments indicate to me.

Dean


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