On 27 September 2017 at 00:17, David Denny <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/24/2017 3:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> David Denny wrote: >> >>> Dear BLFS, >>> >>> I would be grateful for feedback on other's experience setting up LVM2 >>> based on the BLFS instructions to determine if I've goofed somewhere, or >>> just hit a branch not covered. >>> >>> I built my system based on LFS / BLFS. I've kept things pretty well up >>> to >>> date and incrementally added a few things here and there. >>> I bought some big drives and am now working to implement LVM2 based on >>> the >>> BLFS development version (9/23.) >>> I've built, tested and installed the LVM and associated software and >>> configured and populated several volumes, then rebooted. >>> On booting, the LVM volumes do not mount as they should. Note that my >>> boot / system isn't on the LVM volumes. >>> No errors are thrown, logs are clean. In fact, it seems that nothing has >>> happened at all. The system hangs at fstab processing and then enters >>> rescue state. >>> If I manually execute "lvchange -y a" then the drives will pop online and >>> mount perfectly. I can go to the multi-user state. >>> I was able to modify and install three of the systemd scripts that come >>> with LVM2 and modify one setting in lvm.conf to use lvmetad now drives >>> mount on boot. I'm not sure this is all I should do, but at least the >>> booting issue is addressed. >>> >>> I do not see how the current software (udev rules, systemd units) handles >>> boot-up, and I would be grateful to understand if other people are >>> successful in having LVM go online at boot or not. If this is not >>> handled, I could offer some very simple redlines for consideration to the >>> BLFS write-up, otherwise I need to go find my problem. >>> >>> Here are the configuration / versions I'm working with: >>> >>> * BLFS Systemd development version, 9/22 >>> * systemd-234 >>> * BLFS systemd units, 20160602 >>> * LVM2-2.02.171 >>> * mdadm-4.0 >>> * blfs-systemd-unit-20160602 >>> * thin-provisioning from repository as of 9/22 >>> >> >> I understand your problems. The LVM2 codes is not well tested so there >> may be some issues. What I would suggest as an alternative is to use btrfs >> instead. It seems to be easier to use/manage than LVM2. >> >> -- Bruce >> >> >> >> Thank you Bruce and Pierre! > I looked at BTRFS and from what I could find it seem it was still a little > unstable. > I don't need much fancy. All my drive concatenation and RAID is done on > the controller and I don't have anywhere for mirrors or snapshots. > I really just want some resizable partitions for some form of data > security. LVM is currently working okay and I'll just leave it as is for > now. > Best regards, > David > I've been using Btrfs for a number of years and I haven't had a problem with it. You say that you "don't have anywhere for mirrors or snapshots", but it's probably more helpful to view Btrfs as just a file system with which you can do cool things; that doesn't mean to say that you have to use all the features. If, as you say, you just want some resizeable partitions, then Btrfs is the answer; in fact, you probably won't even need partitions, just subvolumes. At the risk of being accused of self-promotion, you might find this talk useful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47A-D6J2NE which I gave at FLOSSUK a couple of years ago. It's quite basic, but somebody tweeted from Australia that it helped them. The video is less than 50 mins long. Richard
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
