Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Sun, 04 Sep 2005 05:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.195]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j84C1aiL025152 for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 05:01:36 -0700 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 18so489970nzp for ; Sun, 04 Sep 2005 04:59:05 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=sfV3YAXcRrHJ+lTlc/fRKEDGU/zCf9iuwgsLvxFUx51bal01XlJSMbhbnZyCmry0QIMTWRdsluDjM+LlhKS9PoJHRmZTMJVsUUk7AQBrf344xkEgzJ72PE0lhWVI6LkY+DxRBpO9YoAqlsblSlJIRNrf+2o97PLQkyVByb/ujoY= Received: by 10.36.119.11 with SMTP id r11mr3742836nzc; Sun, 04 Sep 2005 04:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.160.1 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 04:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 07:59:05 -0400 From: A JM Reply-To: vbtalent@gmail.com To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, iusty@k1024.org Subject: Re: XFS - hard drive dying In-Reply-To: <20050904095639.GA8344@saytrin.hq.k1024.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <4319B8DD.7080200@gmx.net> <20050903194320.GA6857@saytrin.hq.k1024.org> <20050904095639.GA8344@saytrin.hq.k1024.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 6046 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: vbtalent@gmail.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs Content-Length: 1999 Lines: 50 The volume group I created was as far as I know a "default" setup... If I'm going to try to re-create the VG, the /dev/hdb1 (dying 200gig Maxtor ) will be dd' d to a 250gig drive, different size. Since I'm dd'ing the drive and it's creating a partition /dev/hdb1 on the new drive will that cause a problem? I'm guessing not, since it's essentially identical just larger? Just thinking out loud here, since I'm trying to fix (xfs_repair) a VG and the essential data I'm looking for "should" still be intact on the new drive I just dd'd from the dying one. How will the newly created VG on dev/hda4 know to incorporate the exisitng VG on the second drive /dev/hdb1? and will it matter if the VG on /dev/hda4 is not identical to the original as long as it knows to incorporate all of /dev/hdb1 into the VG and the VG name is the same therefore I can run xfs_repair on it. Don't you have to set the "blocks" or something when incorporating a new drive into the VG? Thanks for all the help and ideas. On 9/4/05, Iustin Pop wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 04:18:00PM -0400, A JM wrote: > > Yes, I think you understood correctly. The LVM spanned 1 full disk (hdb > or > > hdb1) and a partition on another disk (hda4). > > I might have a "slight" problem re-activating the VG since the original > OS > > has been rebuilt and therefore doesn't contain what I'm assuming from > your > > post, the original VG data? This is not good! > Uh oh... Could be a problem. > > Can I re-create the VG on the rebuilt OS and try to incorporate hdb1 > back > > into the new VG? Then try running xfs_repair? > Well, if both /dev/hda4 and /dev/hdb1 are available, you should be able > to recreate it. As far as I know, in default configurations, metadata is > written on all PVs. > > Try: vgscan and see if you see the VGforMyth volume. If not, try > pvdisplay /dev/hda4 and pvdisplay /dev/hdb1. Post the output. > > Regards, > Iustin Pop > [[HTML alternate version deleted]]