On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 01:46:53PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Patrick Caulfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-22 09:14]:
> > I've not had a play with the installer for some time (to my shame) but I wonder
> > if it's at all possible to notice that a disk that was allocated to LVM
> > (pvcrea
* Patrick Caulfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-22 09:14]:
> I've not had a play with the installer for some time (to my shame) but I wonder
> if it's at all possible to notice that a disk that was allocated to LVM
> (pvcreated) has now been allocated to a filesystem. In which case a pvremove
> co
I've not had a play with the installer for some time (to my shame) but I wonder
if it's at all possible to notice that a disk that was allocated to LVM
(pvcreated) has now been allocated to a filesystem. In which case a pvremove
could be done on the volume.
This maybe totally impractical, of cours
On Montag, 21. Juni 2004 18:40, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matthias Murra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 17:17]:
> > It's certainly not lvm's fault if the installer screwed up a bit,
> > so yes, this bug probably can be closed -- or reassigned to the
>
> So what exactly did the installer do? Fro
* Matthias Murra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 17:17]:
> It's certainly not lvm's fault if the installer screwed up a bit, so
> yes, this bug probably can be closed -- or reassigned to the
So what exactly did the installer do? From what I can see, you
created some LVM devices, but they were "
On Montag, 21. Juni 2004 16:18, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
>
> Ah, so you did pvcreate on it (or the installer did), then did mkfs
> over that? I can imagine that would have an odd effect on the LVM
> metadata!
The installer seems to have done that, yes. I thought the installer's
behavior was prett
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 03:58:37PM +0200, Matthias Murra wrote:
> On Montag, 21. Juni 2004 14:24, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
> > Hang on, there's an alarm bell that I've not been heeding.
> >
> > Looking in the code: "Incorrect metadata area header checksum" is a
> > fatal error.
> >
> > If that's is
On Montag, 21. Juni 2004 14:24, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
> Hang on, there's an alarm bell that I've not been heeding.
>
> Looking in the code: "Incorrect metadata area header checksum" is a
> fatal error.
>
> If that's is occurring on one of tour PVs then the VG should not
> activate.that leads me
Hang on, there's an alarm bell that I've not been heeding.
Looking in the code: "Incorrect metadata area header checksum" is a fatal error.
If that's is occurring on one of tour PVs then the VG should not activate.that
leads me to think it might be another disk/device that is producing the error.
On Montag, 21. Juni 2004 08:22, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
>
> Well, if things seem to be working OK, I wouldn't worry too much
> about it! I would have expected vgchange to fail if the MDA
> checksums were wrong but it seems not.
>
> In the meantime can you send me a vgdisplay output and a
> pvdispl
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 07:33:45PM +0200, Matthias Murra wrote:
> On Freitag, 18. Juni 2004 18:12, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:54:38PM +0200, Matthias Murra wrote:
> >
> > You probably shouldn't need to reinstall. Upgrading the tools
> > should either fix it automaticall
On Freitag, 18. Juni 2004 18:12, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:54:38PM +0200, Matthias Murra wrote:
>
> You probably shouldn't need to reinstall. Upgrading the tools
> should either fix it automatically, or you can do
> vgcfgbackup/vgcfgrestore to rewrite the metadata.
I ha
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:54:38PM +0200, Matthias Murra wrote:
>
> I have stumbled across this thread by googling for the "incorrect
> metadata area header checksum" message mentioned above, because
> that's the message I am seeing when booting my Debian Sid system that
> I installed on my Tos
On Fri, 11 Jun, 2004, at 17:25:25 +0100, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 03:10:18PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-11 06:19]:
> > > > In any case, can you type:
> > > > vgchange -a y
> > > > and restart the partitioner; then
* Patrick Caulfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-14 09:17]:
> http://people.debian.org/~patrick/lvm2-udeb_2.00.16-2_i386.udeb
daveg2: After network configuration in debian-installer, open a shell
on the 2nd virtual console (alt-f2) and then type:
wget http://people.debian.org/~patrick/lvm2-udeb_2
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 02:43:29PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Patrick Caulfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-11 17:25]:
> > There was an odd bug in earlier lvm2 that used to cause checksum
> > failures but I can't locate which version that was and I assume that
> > you'll be using a fairly
* Patrick Caulfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-11 17:25]:
> There was an odd bug in earlier lvm2 that used to cause checksum
> failures but I can't locate which version that was and I assume that
> you'll be using a fairly recent udeb anyway.
No, the udeb we currently use is 2.00.08-4 (at least
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 03:10:18PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> reassign 252164 lvm2
> thanks
>
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-11 06:19]:
> > > In any case, can you type:
> > > vgchange -a y
> > > and restart the partitioner; then they should show up.
> > >
> > Done. Fo
reassign 252164 lvm2
thanks
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-11 06:19]:
> > In any case, can you type:
> > vgchange -a y
> > and restart the partitioner; then they should show up.
> >
> Done. For each lv, I get:
> Incorrect metadata area header checksum
> Incorrect metadata are
On 11 Jun 2004 at 13:13, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
> Strange, I wonder why they're inactive... since you just created them,
> they should be active. You did just create them, right? Or did they
> exist before?
I did just create them. In other runs where I did not, it tells me that
it fo
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-10 19:42]:
> lvscan reports the same first three lines as vgscan and concludes
> by correctly listing all lvs, but as inactive. Here's the first listed:
> inactive '/dev/vg1/usrlv' [1.0 GB] next free (default).
Strange, I wonder why they're inac
On 10 Jun 2004 at 20:48, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-02 22:21]:
> > OK, I went back through the steps. Indeed I did all of 1 through 5 in
> > the correct order. I can't for the life of me figure out 6. In the main
> > menu of Partition Disks,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-02 22:21]:
> OK, I went back through the steps. Indeed I did all of 1 through 5 in
> the correct order. I can't for the life of me figure out 6. In the main
> menu of Partition Disks, I can see all partitions including the two
> lvm partitions,
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:11:11PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just today discovered the IBM donation of EVMS to the LINUX world. I'll bet I
> also
> need to select evms-udeb? I have not been because I didn't know what EVMS is. If
> not required, what does evms-udeb add?
evms-udeb i
On 1 Jun 2004 at 19:50, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Hola daveg!
>
> Well, this might seem stupid, but did you select the filesystem in the
> partition manager menu? That's where you have to select it. These are
> the steps for LVM in the new debian installer:
> 1 - Create the LVM partitions i
On 1 Jun 2004 at 19:50, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Hola daveg!
> > Partitioning goes fine, configuring the lvm goes fine,
> > but on leaving the lvm and starting up the partitioner,
> > it hangs at 56%. Only once out of many attempts did
> > it complete. In that case, it continued to insta
Hola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Partitioning goes fine, configuring the lvm goes fine,
> but on leaving the lvm and starting up the partitioner,
> it hangs at 56%. Only once out of many attempts did
> it complete. In that case, it continued to install base
> system without offering to create filesy
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-01 12:45]:
> Sarge daily 5-22-04 from the Debian site
Can you get a newer image from
http://gluck.debian.org/cdimage/testing/sarge_d-i/
(although it shouldn't really matter).
> Partitioning goes fine, configuring the lvm goes fine, but on
> leaving
Package: installation-reports
Debian-installer-version:
Sarge daily 5-22-04 from the Debian site
uname -a:
linux server 2.6.5-1-386#2 Fri Apr 30 20:13:30 EST 2004 i586 unknown
Date: Friday May 7, 2004 ~8:30 PM PDT
Method: Net install using the 800 MB netinst image,
booted from the CD, exper
29 matches
Mail list logo
