On Thursday 24 March 2011 22:07:28 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > On Thursday 24 March 2011 12:08:02 Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Thursday 24 March 2011 12:19:39 Dale wrote: > > > I have never used LVM but when it messes up after a upgrade, as has > > > happened to many others, see if you say the same thing. I hope your > > > backups are good and they can restore. > > > > What is this "mess up after an upgrade" of which you speak? > > > > I've used multiple versions of LVM on multiple machines across multiple > > distros for multiple years and never once heard of anyone having a > > problem with it let along experienced one myself. > > > > Shades of FUD methinks. > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=lvm > or if you like a bit of history:
Not all of these are LVM, some are only shown because they're related to llvm (Which is a virtual machine), but lets ignore those all-together :) On the first page, at first glance, I don't see any serious ones that are only LVM. The boot-issue was caused by genkernel not being up-to-date with name-changes. > http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=ALL+lvm > there you go. See above > I like this one: > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=350455 Looks like an issue with heavy I/O, affecting the LVM layer trying to lock the filesystem. But I wonder if he's not running into a known issue (which can easily be worked around) where pvmove has a memory-leak with the reporting. (eg. the bit that checks the progress every 5 seconds, reducing that to every 5 minutes significantly reduces that) However, I do believe this (mem-leak) was fixed. Am curious what the result will be of that. Please note, I do not run masked (~amd64) kernels. Kind regards, Joost Roeleveld
