On Monday 15 July 2013 23:33:55 you wrote: [...] > Good deal there. Congrats on it... do you actually have any test cases > with lvm and preserve? If not, what are others doing?
I got some testcases where I was asked not to publish them. One of them may use lvm+preserve but I don't know from the top of my head. Can you provide a working example? https://github.com/ThomasNeumann/Public/tree/master/fai-setup- storage/t/21_simple/ Has a couple of preserve tests. You need a '<diskconfig>.preformat' file which prepares the disk config and a '<diskconfig>' file which does the actual preserving. I suggest generating a couple of tests from the actual 'preserve'-config: - on an empty device - with <diskconfig>.preserve equal to <diskconfig> - with <diskconfig>.preserve different to <diskconfig> (preserveable) - with <diskconfig>.preserve different to <diskconfig> (non preserveable) (move the last one to 91_intentionally_broken/) Afterwards you need to execute run-tests at least 2 times - the first time captures the current results as reference, each execution after that compares the stored result with the current result and notifies you if something has changed. [I intentionally didn't include any test results because one can use either real devices or faked tmpfs-devices. The results would change depending on what devices are available and their actual capacity.] > [...] That said, I was a bit surprised to find out that > even when a partition is preserved, the entire partition table is blown > away anyway and then rebuilt with the preserved partition using the same > boundaries. Scarily enough this means if the install crashes at a > certain point, the preserved partition will effectively have > disappeared. (Obviously erasing and re-writing the partition table > requires having all vg's disabled, making my original assertion wrong) That surprised me too, but since I don't use preserve at all I haven't given much thought to the implications. Especially what is happening when preserving LVM devices. (Is it possible to trick setup-storage into shrinking the underlying PV but 'preserving' a LV? This can lead to very 'interesting' results.) > Anyway, I'd be glad to hear if I'm wrong/out of line, with these > suggestions/questions. I'd like to see an improvement on that front. I assume Thomas L. isn't happy about the current regression either. bye thomas
