Too late for LVM on my working system? - Redhat

This is a discussion on Too late for LVM on my working system? - Redhat ; * * * * * * * * CROSS POSTED: * * * * * * * * alt.linux.redhat, alt.os.linux.redhat, linux.redhat, linux.redhat.install Hello to All: My home computer system consists of a 2002 built MicronPC ClientPro 325 with its original ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Too late for LVM on my working system?

  1. Too late for LVM on my working system?


    * * * * * * * * CROSS POSTED: * * * * * * * *
    alt.linux.redhat, alt.os.linux.redhat, linux.redhat,
    linux.redhat.install

    Hello to All:

    My home computer system consists of a 2002 built MicronPC ClientPro
    325 with its original Intel D845GRG motherboard whose CPU is a Pentium
    4, 2.0GHz, 400 FSB and 2GB of RAM.

    I have two each 40GB IDE hard disks such that hda, a WDC
    WD400BB-00DEA0, on the Primary Master, has Windows XP Pro on hda1, and
    is formatted NTFS, hda2 (FAT32) is a shared partition for both
    systems. The 2nd hard disk, a Maxtor 6L040L2, on the Primary Slave,
    (hdb) has eleven Linux partitions and is formatted EXT3 (now) for my
    Linux system, presently a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 (Tikanga).

    As can be guessed, the system had originally been a single boot XP
    system, as originally built by Micron. The 2nd hard disk was later
    added for dual boot with RHEL3 (Taroon). The hdb partitions were
    originally sized through the advice of others, and although I've
    adjusted their sizes with Partition Magic 8 and GParted in the early
    days of EXT2, I've never retired my partition quantities from my
    original choices.

    The 2nd hard disk (hdb) is exclusively for Linux and approximately
    17GB, of its total 40GB, is unpartitioned.

    My hdb information:

    Device Boot Start End Blocks Id Partition
    /dev/hdb1 * 1 17 136521 83 /boot
    /dev/hdb2 18 1292 10241437+ 83 /usr
    /dev/hdb3 1293 1419 1020127+ 83 /usr/local
    /dev/hdb4 1420 4866 27688027+ 5 Extended
    /dev/hdb5 1420 1674 2048256 82 Linux swap
    /dev/hdb6 1675 1929 2048256 83 /var
    /dev/hdb7 1930 2184 2048256 83 /
    /dev/hdb8 2185 2439 2048256 83 /spare
    /dev/hdb9 2440 2503 514048+ 83 /opt
    /dev/hdb10 2504 2567 514048+ 83 /home
    /dev/hdb11 2568 2631 514048+ 83 /tmp

    Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/hdb7 1.9G 1.2G 641M 66% /
    /dev/hdb1 130M 13M 110M 11% /boot
    tmpfs 950M 0 950M 0% /dev/shm
    /dev/hdb10 487M 11M 451M 3% /home
    /dev/hdb9 487M 76M 386M 17% /opt
    /dev/hdb8 1.9G 35M 1.8G 2% /spare
    /dev/hdb11 487M 217M 245M 47% /tmp
    /dev/hdb2 9.5G 4.0G 5.0G 45% /usr
    /dev/hdb3 965M 38M 878M 5% /usr/local
    /dev/hdb6 1.9G 368M 1.5G 21% /var
    /dev/hda2 2.0G 1.5G 538M 74% /mnt/share

    "system-config-lvm" says that all my Linux partitions are of a
    "Uninitialized Disk Entity" class. This is due to the fact that I was
    not courageous enough to create anything with LVM back then. Suffice
    to say that nothing has been done to enjoy the benefits of LVM since.

    Question: Since my RHEL5.1 Tikanga is used as a running & viable
    system, and as long as I have recent partition backups, would I be
    able to "Initialize all the Disk Entities" and probably not loose
    anything? My Red Hat software is up-to the-minute current.

    Thank you in advance,
    Onepeanutwhistle

  2. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    onepeanutwhistle@aol.com wrote:
    > * * * * * * * * CROSS POSTED: * * * * * * * *
    > alt.linux.redhat, alt.os.linux.redhat, linux.redhat,
    > linux.redhat.install
    >
    > Hello to All:
    >
    > My home computer system consists of a 2002 built MicronPC ClientPro
    > 325 with its original Intel D845GRG motherboard whose CPU is a Pentium
    > 4, 2.0GHz, 400 FSB and 2GB of RAM.
    >
    > I have two each 40GB IDE hard disks such that hda, a WDC
    > WD400BB-00DEA0, on the Primary Master, has Windows XP Pro on hda1, and
    > is formatted NTFS, hda2 (FAT32) is a shared partition for both
    > systems. The 2nd hard disk, a Maxtor 6L040L2, on the Primary Slave,
    > (hdb) has eleven Linux partitions and is formatted EXT3 (now) for my
    > Linux system, presently a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 (Tikanga).
    >
    > As can be guessed, the system had originally been a single boot XP
    > system, as originally built by Micron. The 2nd hard disk was later
    > added for dual boot with RHEL3 (Taroon). The hdb partitions were
    > originally sized through the advice of others, and although I've
    > adjusted their sizes with Partition Magic 8 and GParted in the early
    > days of EXT2, I've never retired my partition quantities from my
    > original choices.
    >
    > The 2nd hard disk (hdb) is exclusively for Linux and approximately
    > 17GB, of its total 40GB, is unpartitioned.
    >
    > My hdb information:
    >
    > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id Partition
    > /dev/hdb1 * 1 17 136521 83 /boot
    > /dev/hdb2 18 1292 10241437+ 83 /usr
    > /dev/hdb3 1293 1419 1020127+ 83 /usr/local
    > /dev/hdb4 1420 4866 27688027+ 5 Extended
    > /dev/hdb5 1420 1674 2048256 82 Linux swap
    > /dev/hdb6 1675 1929 2048256 83 /var
    > /dev/hdb7 1930 2184 2048256 83 /
    > /dev/hdb8 2185 2439 2048256 83 /spare
    > /dev/hdb9 2440 2503 514048+ 83 /opt
    > /dev/hdb10 2504 2567 514048+ 83 /home
    > /dev/hdb11 2568 2631 514048+ 83 /tmp
    >
    > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    > /dev/hdb7 1.9G 1.2G 641M 66% /
    > /dev/hdb1 130M 13M 110M 11% /boot
    > tmpfs 950M 0 950M 0% /dev/shm
    > /dev/hdb10 487M 11M 451M 3% /home
    > /dev/hdb9 487M 76M 386M 17% /opt
    > /dev/hdb8 1.9G 35M 1.8G 2% /spare
    > /dev/hdb11 487M 217M 245M 47% /tmp
    > /dev/hdb2 9.5G 4.0G 5.0G 45% /usr
    > /dev/hdb3 965M 38M 878M 5% /usr/local
    > /dev/hdb6 1.9G 368M 1.5G 21% /var
    > /dev/hda2 2.0G 1.5G 538M 74% /mnt/share
    >
    > "system-config-lvm" says that all my Linux partitions are of a
    > "Uninitialized Disk Entity" class. This is due to the fact that I was
    > not courageous enough to create anything with LVM back then. Suffice
    > to say that nothing has been done to enjoy the benefits of LVM since.
    >
    > Question: Since my RHEL5.1 Tikanga is used as a running & viable
    > system, and as long as I have recent partition backups, would I be
    > able to "Initialize all the Disk Entities" and probably not loose
    > anything? My Red Hat software is up-to the-minute current.
    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    > Onepeanutwhistle


    First of all, try to create the lvm in your unused partitions. You
    probably should change their partition type to linux lvm (8e). Maybe
    that is all system-config-lvm needs to know it can use them.

    Last time I used lvm, I had an unused partition in one disk and an
    entire unused disk. I have not used system-config-lvm but instead did
    the steps by hand. In words it would go like this:

    o Ok, I need to create the physical volumes in those two partitions so
    lvm can play with them.

    pvcreate /dev/sda8 /dev/sdb1

    o I am creating a lvm and it shall be called tim, which will be composed
    of a partition in disk sda and this other partition (i.e. the one for
    the entire disk) in disk sdb.

    vgcreate tim /dev/sda8 /dev/sdb1

    o Now I am going to create two partitions, alpha (50GB) and beta
    (150GB), inside tim without using the entire space I have allocated.

    lvcreate -L50G -nalpha tim
    lvcreate -L150G -nbeta tim

    o Format alpha and beta as ext3.

    mke2fs -j /dev/tim/alpha
    mke2fs -j /dev/tim/beta

    o Mount them, alpha in /export/home (yes, I have some solaris naughty
    habits) and beta in /export/hosts (for vmware)

    mount /dev/tim/alpha /export/home
    mount /dev/tim/beta /export/hosts
    df -h
    Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/sda1 23G 1.9G 20G 9% /
    [...]
    /dev/mapper/tim-alpha 50G 180M 47G 1% /export/home
    /dev/mapper/tim-beta 148G 188M 140G 1% /export/hosts

    In your case, you could then move the contents of your /home to
    /export/home. Once you see that works, you could then move more stuff
    and create more partitions in tim. As you empty the non-lvm partitions,
    you could then add them to the lvm either as-is or group them in one
    single blob and then add the blob.
    --
    Mauricio raub-kudria-com
    (if you need to email me, use this address =)

  3. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    onepeanutwhistle@aol.com wrote:
    > * * * * * * * * CROSS POSTED: * * * * * * * *
    > alt.linux.redhat, alt.os.linux.redhat, linux.redhat,
    > linux.redhat.install
    >
    > Hello to All:
    >
    > My home computer system consists of a 2002 built MicronPC ClientPro
    > 325 with its original Intel D845GRG motherboard whose CPU is a Pentium
    > 4, 2.0GHz, 400 FSB and 2GB of RAM.
    >
    > I have two each 40GB IDE hard disks such that hda, a WDC
    > WD400BB-00DEA0, on the Primary Master, has Windows XP Pro on hda1, and
    > is formatted NTFS, hda2 (FAT32) is a shared partition for both
    > systems. The 2nd hard disk, a Maxtor 6L040L2, on the Primary Slave,
    > (hdb) has eleven Linux partitions and is formatted EXT3 (now) for my
    > Linux system, presently a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 (Tikanga).
    >
    > As can be guessed, the system had originally been a single boot XP
    > system, as originally built by Micron. The 2nd hard disk was later
    > added for dual boot with RHEL3 (Taroon). The hdb partitions were
    > originally sized through the advice of others, and although I've
    > adjusted their sizes with Partition Magic 8 and GParted in the early
    > days of EXT2, I've never retired my partition quantities from my
    > original choices.
    >
    > The 2nd hard disk (hdb) is exclusively for Linux and approximately
    > 17GB, of its total 40GB, is unpartitioned.
    >
    > My hdb information:
    >
    > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id Partition
    > /dev/hdb1 * 1 17 136521 83 /boot
    > /dev/hdb2 18 1292 10241437+ 83 /usr
    > /dev/hdb3 1293 1419 1020127+ 83 /usr/local
    > /dev/hdb4 1420 4866 27688027+ 5 Extended
    > /dev/hdb5 1420 1674 2048256 82 Linux swap
    > /dev/hdb6 1675 1929 2048256 83 /var
    > /dev/hdb7 1930 2184 2048256 83 /
    > /dev/hdb8 2185 2439 2048256 83 /spare
    > /dev/hdb9 2440 2503 514048+ 83 /opt
    > /dev/hdb10 2504 2567 514048+ 83 /home
    > /dev/hdb11 2568 2631 514048+ 83 /tmp
    >
    > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    > /dev/hdb7 1.9G 1.2G 641M 66% /
    > /dev/hdb1 130M 13M 110M 11% /boot
    > tmpfs 950M 0 950M 0% /dev/shm
    > /dev/hdb10 487M 11M 451M 3% /home
    > /dev/hdb9 487M 76M 386M 17% /opt
    > /dev/hdb8 1.9G 35M 1.8G 2% /spare
    > /dev/hdb11 487M 217M 245M 47% /tmp
    > /dev/hdb2 9.5G 4.0G 5.0G 45% /usr
    > /dev/hdb3 965M 38M 878M 5% /usr/local
    > /dev/hdb6 1.9G 368M 1.5G 21% /var
    > /dev/hda2 2.0G 1.5G 538M 74% /mnt/share
    >
    > "system-config-lvm" says that all my Linux partitions are of a
    > "Uninitialized Disk Entity" class. This is due to the fact that I was
    > not courageous enough to create anything with LVM back then. Suffice
    > to say that nothing has been done to enjoy the benefits of LVM since.
    >
    > Question: Since my RHEL5.1 Tikanga is used as a running & viable
    > system, and as long as I have recent partition backups, would I be
    > able to "Initialize all the Disk Entities" and probably not loose
    > anything? My Red Hat software is up-to the-minute current.
    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    > Onepeanutwhistle


    First of all, try to create the lvm in your unused partitions. You
    probably should change their partition type to linux lvm (8e). Maybe
    that is all system-config-lvm needs to know it can use them.

    Last time I used lvm, I had an unused partition in one disk and an
    entire unused disk. I have not used system-config-lvm but instead did
    the steps by hand. In words it would go like this:

    o Ok, I need to create the physical volumes in those two partitions so
    lvm can play with them.

    pvcreate /dev/sda8 /dev/sdb1

    o I am creating a lvm and it shall be called tim, which will be composed
    of a partition in disk sda and this other partition (i.e. the one for
    the entire disk) in disk sdb.

    vgcreate tim /dev/sda8 /dev/sdb1

    o Now I am going to create two partitions, alpha (50GB) and beta
    (150GB), inside tim without using the entire space I have allocated.

    lvcreate -L50G -nalpha tim
    lvcreate -L150G -nbeta tim

    o Format alpha and beta as ext3.

    mke2fs -j /dev/tim/alpha
    mke2fs -j /dev/tim/beta

    o Mount them, alpha in /export/home (yes, I have some solaris naughty
    habits) and beta in /export/hosts (for vmware)

    mount /dev/tim/alpha /export/home
    mount /dev/tim/beta /export/hosts
    df -h
    Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/sda1 23G 1.9G 20G 9% /
    [...]
    /dev/mapper/tim-alpha 50G 180M 47G 1% /export/home
    /dev/mapper/tim-beta 148G 188M 140G 1% /export/hosts

    In your case, you could then move the contents of your /home to
    /export/home. Once you see that works, you could then move more stuff
    and create more partitions in tim. As you empty the non-lvm partitions,
    you could then add them to the lvm either as-is or group them in one
    single blob and then add the blob.
    --
    Mauricio raub-kudria-com
    (if you need to email me, use this address =)

  4. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    onepeanutwhistle@aol.com wrote:
    > * * * * * * * * CROSS POSTED: * * * * * * * *
    > alt.linux.redhat, alt.os.linux.redhat, linux.redhat,
    > linux.redhat.install
    >
    > Hello to All:
    >
    > My home computer system consists of a 2002 built MicronPC ClientPro
    > 325 with its original Intel D845GRG motherboard whose CPU is a Pentium
    > 4, 2.0GHz, 400 FSB and 2GB of RAM.
    >
    > I have two each 40GB IDE hard disks such that hda, a WDC
    > WD400BB-00DEA0, on the Primary Master, has Windows XP Pro on hda1, and
    > is formatted NTFS, hda2 (FAT32) is a shared partition for both
    > systems. The 2nd hard disk, a Maxtor 6L040L2, on the Primary Slave,
    > (hdb) has eleven Linux partitions and is formatted EXT3 (now) for my
    > Linux system, presently a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 (Tikanga).
    >
    > As can be guessed, the system had originally been a single boot XP
    > system, as originally built by Micron. The 2nd hard disk was later
    > added for dual boot with RHEL3 (Taroon). The hdb partitions were
    > originally sized through the advice of others, and although I've
    > adjusted their sizes with Partition Magic 8 and GParted in the early
    > days of EXT2, I've never retired my partition quantities from my
    > original choices.
    >
    > The 2nd hard disk (hdb) is exclusively for Linux and approximately
    > 17GB, of its total 40GB, is unpartitioned.
    >
    > My hdb information:
    >
    > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id Partition
    > /dev/hdb1 * 1 17 136521 83 /boot
    > /dev/hdb2 18 1292 10241437+ 83 /usr
    > /dev/hdb3 1293 1419 1020127+ 83 /usr/local
    > /dev/hdb4 1420 4866 27688027+ 5 Extended
    > /dev/hdb5 1420 1674 2048256 82 Linux swap
    > /dev/hdb6 1675 1929 2048256 83 /var
    > /dev/hdb7 1930 2184 2048256 83 /
    > /dev/hdb8 2185 2439 2048256 83 /spare
    > /dev/hdb9 2440 2503 514048+ 83 /opt
    > /dev/hdb10 2504 2567 514048+ 83 /home
    > /dev/hdb11 2568 2631 514048+ 83 /tmp
    >
    > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    > /dev/hdb7 1.9G 1.2G 641M 66% /
    > /dev/hdb1 130M 13M 110M 11% /boot
    > tmpfs 950M 0 950M 0% /dev/shm
    > /dev/hdb10 487M 11M 451M 3% /home
    > /dev/hdb9 487M 76M 386M 17% /opt
    > /dev/hdb8 1.9G 35M 1.8G 2% /spare
    > /dev/hdb11 487M 217M 245M 47% /tmp
    > /dev/hdb2 9.5G 4.0G 5.0G 45% /usr
    > /dev/hdb3 965M 38M 878M 5% /usr/local
    > /dev/hdb6 1.9G 368M 1.5G 21% /var
    > /dev/hda2 2.0G 1.5G 538M 74% /mnt/share
    >
    > "system-config-lvm" says that all my Linux partitions are of a
    > "Uninitialized Disk Entity" class. This is due to the fact that I was
    > not courageous enough to create anything with LVM back then. Suffice
    > to say that nothing has been done to enjoy the benefits of LVM since.
    >
    > Question: Since my RHEL5.1 Tikanga is used as a running & viable
    > system, and as long as I have recent partition backups, would I be
    > able to "Initialize all the Disk Entities" and probably not loose
    > anything? My Red Hat software is up-to the-minute current.
    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    > Onepeanutwhistle


    First of all, try to create the lvm in your unused partitions. You
    probably should change their partition type to linux lvm (8e). Maybe
    that is all system-config-lvm needs to know it can use them.

    Last time I used lvm, I had an unused partition in one disk and an
    entire unused disk. I have not used system-config-lvm but instead did
    the steps by hand. In words it would go like this:

    o Ok, I need to create the physical volumes in those two partitions so
    lvm can play with them.

    pvcreate /dev/sda8 /dev/sdb1

    o I am creating a lvm and it shall be called tim, which will be composed
    of a partition in disk sda and this other partition (i.e. the one for
    the entire disk) in disk sdb.

    vgcreate tim /dev/sda8 /dev/sdb1

    o Now I am going to create two partitions, alpha (50GB) and beta
    (150GB), inside tim without using the entire space I have allocated.

    lvcreate -L50G -nalpha tim
    lvcreate -L150G -nbeta tim

    o Format alpha and beta as ext3.

    mke2fs -j /dev/tim/alpha
    mke2fs -j /dev/tim/beta

    o Mount them, alpha in /export/home (yes, I have some solaris naughty
    habits) and beta in /export/hosts (for vmware)

    mount /dev/tim/alpha /export/home
    mount /dev/tim/beta /export/hosts
    df -h
    Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/sda1 23G 1.9G 20G 9% /
    [...]
    /dev/mapper/tim-alpha 50G 180M 47G 1% /export/home
    /dev/mapper/tim-beta 148G 188M 140G 1% /export/hosts

    In your case, you could then move the contents of your /home to
    /export/home. Once you see that works, you could then move more stuff
    and create more partitions in tim. As you empty the non-lvm partitions,
    you could then add them to the lvm either as-is or group them in one
    single blob and then add the blob.
    --
    Mauricio raub-kudria-com
    (if you need to email me, use this address =)

  5. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    onepeanutwhistle@aol.com wrote:
    > * * * * * * * * CROSS POSTED: * * * * * * * *
    > alt.linux.redhat, alt.os.linux.redhat, linux.redhat,
    > linux.redhat.install
    >
    > Hello to All:
    >
    > My home computer system consists of a 2002 built MicronPC ClientPro
    > 325 with its original Intel D845GRG motherboard whose CPU is a Pentium
    > 4, 2.0GHz, 400 FSB and 2GB of RAM.
    >
    > I have two each 40GB IDE hard disks such that hda, a WDC
    > WD400BB-00DEA0, on the Primary Master, has Windows XP Pro on hda1, and
    > is formatted NTFS, hda2 (FAT32) is a shared partition for both
    > systems. The 2nd hard disk, a Maxtor 6L040L2, on the Primary Slave,
    > (hdb) has eleven Linux partitions and is formatted EXT3 (now) for my
    > Linux system, presently a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 (Tikanga).
    >
    > As can be guessed, the system had originally been a single boot XP
    > system, as originally built by Micron. The 2nd hard disk was later
    > added for dual boot with RHEL3 (Taroon). The hdb partitions were
    > originally sized through the advice of others, and although I've
    > adjusted their sizes with Partition Magic 8 and GParted in the early
    > days of EXT2, I've never retired my partition quantities from my
    > original choices.
    >
    > The 2nd hard disk (hdb) is exclusively for Linux and approximately
    > 17GB, of its total 40GB, is unpartitioned.
    >
    > My hdb information:
    >
    > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id Partition
    > /dev/hdb1 * 1 17 136521 83 /boot
    > /dev/hdb2 18 1292 10241437+ 83 /usr
    > /dev/hdb3 1293 1419 1020127+ 83 /usr/local
    > /dev/hdb4 1420 4866 27688027+ 5 Extended
    > /dev/hdb5 1420 1674 2048256 82 Linux swap
    > /dev/hdb6 1675 1929 2048256 83 /var
    > /dev/hdb7 1930 2184 2048256 83 /
    > /dev/hdb8 2185 2439 2048256 83 /spare
    > /dev/hdb9 2440 2503 514048+ 83 /opt
    > /dev/hdb10 2504 2567 514048+ 83 /home
    > /dev/hdb11 2568 2631 514048+ 83 /tmp
    >
    > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    > /dev/hdb7 1.9G 1.2G 641M 66% /
    > /dev/hdb1 130M 13M 110M 11% /boot
    > tmpfs 950M 0 950M 0% /dev/shm
    > /dev/hdb10 487M 11M 451M 3% /home
    > /dev/hdb9 487M 76M 386M 17% /opt
    > /dev/hdb8 1.9G 35M 1.8G 2% /spare
    > /dev/hdb11 487M 217M 245M 47% /tmp
    > /dev/hdb2 9.5G 4.0G 5.0G 45% /usr
    > /dev/hdb3 965M 38M 878M 5% /usr/local
    > /dev/hdb6 1.9G 368M 1.5G 21% /var
    > /dev/hda2 2.0G 1.5G 538M 74% /mnt/share
    >
    > "system-config-lvm" says that all my Linux partitions are of a
    > "Uninitialized Disk Entity" class. This is due to the fact that I was
    > not courageous enough to create anything with LVM back then. Suffice
    > to say that nothing has been done to enjoy the benefits of LVM since.
    >
    > Question: Since my RHEL5.1 Tikanga is used as a running & viable
    > system, and as long as I have recent partition backups, would I be
    > able to "Initialize all the Disk Entities" and probably not loose
    > anything? My Red Hat software is up-to the-minute current.
    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    > Onepeanutwhistle


    Hey,

    Redhat has some really good LVM documentation that could probably
    answer all your questions and then some. They will tell you what you
    can and can not do - I have used them many times. Initializing disks
    for LVM if you are not using LVM is not a good idea, especially if you
    are using them. LVM is powerful, but can really bite you quick if you
    make a mistake.

    http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/c...ex-master.html

    JR.


    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  6. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    onepeanutwhistle@aol.com wrote:
    > * * * * * * * * CROSS POSTED: * * * * * * * *
    > alt.linux.redhat, alt.os.linux.redhat, linux.redhat,
    > linux.redhat.install
    >
    > Hello to All:
    >
    > My home computer system consists of a 2002 built MicronPC ClientPro
    > 325 with its original Intel D845GRG motherboard whose CPU is a Pentium
    > 4, 2.0GHz, 400 FSB and 2GB of RAM.
    >
    > I have two each 40GB IDE hard disks such that hda, a WDC
    > WD400BB-00DEA0, on the Primary Master, has Windows XP Pro on hda1, and
    > is formatted NTFS, hda2 (FAT32) is a shared partition for both
    > systems. The 2nd hard disk, a Maxtor 6L040L2, on the Primary Slave,
    > (hdb) has eleven Linux partitions and is formatted EXT3 (now) for my
    > Linux system, presently a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 (Tikanga).
    >
    > As can be guessed, the system had originally been a single boot XP
    > system, as originally built by Micron. The 2nd hard disk was later
    > added for dual boot with RHEL3 (Taroon). The hdb partitions were
    > originally sized through the advice of others, and although I've
    > adjusted their sizes with Partition Magic 8 and GParted in the early
    > days of EXT2, I've never retired my partition quantities from my
    > original choices.
    >
    > The 2nd hard disk (hdb) is exclusively for Linux and approximately
    > 17GB, of its total 40GB, is unpartitioned.
    >
    > My hdb information:
    >
    > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id Partition
    > /dev/hdb1 * 1 17 136521 83 /boot
    > /dev/hdb2 18 1292 10241437+ 83 /usr
    > /dev/hdb3 1293 1419 1020127+ 83 /usr/local
    > /dev/hdb4 1420 4866 27688027+ 5 Extended
    > /dev/hdb5 1420 1674 2048256 82 Linux swap
    > /dev/hdb6 1675 1929 2048256 83 /var
    > /dev/hdb7 1930 2184 2048256 83 /
    > /dev/hdb8 2185 2439 2048256 83 /spare
    > /dev/hdb9 2440 2503 514048+ 83 /opt
    > /dev/hdb10 2504 2567 514048+ 83 /home
    > /dev/hdb11 2568 2631 514048+ 83 /tmp
    >
    > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    > /dev/hdb7 1.9G 1.2G 641M 66% /
    > /dev/hdb1 130M 13M 110M 11% /boot
    > tmpfs 950M 0 950M 0% /dev/shm
    > /dev/hdb10 487M 11M 451M 3% /home
    > /dev/hdb9 487M 76M 386M 17% /opt
    > /dev/hdb8 1.9G 35M 1.8G 2% /spare
    > /dev/hdb11 487M 217M 245M 47% /tmp
    > /dev/hdb2 9.5G 4.0G 5.0G 45% /usr
    > /dev/hdb3 965M 38M 878M 5% /usr/local
    > /dev/hdb6 1.9G 368M 1.5G 21% /var
    > /dev/hda2 2.0G 1.5G 538M 74% /mnt/share
    >
    > "system-config-lvm" says that all my Linux partitions are of a
    > "Uninitialized Disk Entity" class. This is due to the fact that I was
    > not courageous enough to create anything with LVM back then. Suffice
    > to say that nothing has been done to enjoy the benefits of LVM since.
    >
    > Question: Since my RHEL5.1 Tikanga is used as a running & viable
    > system, and as long as I have recent partition backups, would I be
    > able to "Initialize all the Disk Entities" and probably not loose
    > anything? My Red Hat software is up-to the-minute current.
    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    > Onepeanutwhistle


    Hey,

    Redhat has some really good LVM documentation that could probably
    answer all your questions and then some. They will tell you what you
    can and can not do - I have used them many times. Initializing disks
    for LVM if you are not using LVM is not a good idea, especially if you
    are using them. LVM is powerful, but can really bite you quick if you
    make a mistake.

    http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/c...ex-master.html

    JR.


    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  7. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    onepeanutwhistle@aol.com wrote:
    > * * * * * * * * CROSS POSTED: * * * * * * * *
    > alt.linux.redhat, alt.os.linux.redhat, linux.redhat,
    > linux.redhat.install
    >
    > Hello to All:
    >
    > My home computer system consists of a 2002 built MicronPC ClientPro
    > 325 with its original Intel D845GRG motherboard whose CPU is a Pentium
    > 4, 2.0GHz, 400 FSB and 2GB of RAM.
    >
    > I have two each 40GB IDE hard disks such that hda, a WDC
    > WD400BB-00DEA0, on the Primary Master, has Windows XP Pro on hda1, and
    > is formatted NTFS, hda2 (FAT32) is a shared partition for both
    > systems. The 2nd hard disk, a Maxtor 6L040L2, on the Primary Slave,
    > (hdb) has eleven Linux partitions and is formatted EXT3 (now) for my
    > Linux system, presently a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 (Tikanga).
    >
    > As can be guessed, the system had originally been a single boot XP
    > system, as originally built by Micron. The 2nd hard disk was later
    > added for dual boot with RHEL3 (Taroon). The hdb partitions were
    > originally sized through the advice of others, and although I've
    > adjusted their sizes with Partition Magic 8 and GParted in the early
    > days of EXT2, I've never retired my partition quantities from my
    > original choices.
    >
    > The 2nd hard disk (hdb) is exclusively for Linux and approximately
    > 17GB, of its total 40GB, is unpartitioned.
    >
    > My hdb information:
    >
    > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id Partition
    > /dev/hdb1 * 1 17 136521 83 /boot
    > /dev/hdb2 18 1292 10241437+ 83 /usr
    > /dev/hdb3 1293 1419 1020127+ 83 /usr/local
    > /dev/hdb4 1420 4866 27688027+ 5 Extended
    > /dev/hdb5 1420 1674 2048256 82 Linux swap
    > /dev/hdb6 1675 1929 2048256 83 /var
    > /dev/hdb7 1930 2184 2048256 83 /
    > /dev/hdb8 2185 2439 2048256 83 /spare
    > /dev/hdb9 2440 2503 514048+ 83 /opt
    > /dev/hdb10 2504 2567 514048+ 83 /home
    > /dev/hdb11 2568 2631 514048+ 83 /tmp
    >
    > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    > /dev/hdb7 1.9G 1.2G 641M 66% /
    > /dev/hdb1 130M 13M 110M 11% /boot
    > tmpfs 950M 0 950M 0% /dev/shm
    > /dev/hdb10 487M 11M 451M 3% /home
    > /dev/hdb9 487M 76M 386M 17% /opt
    > /dev/hdb8 1.9G 35M 1.8G 2% /spare
    > /dev/hdb11 487M 217M 245M 47% /tmp
    > /dev/hdb2 9.5G 4.0G 5.0G 45% /usr
    > /dev/hdb3 965M 38M 878M 5% /usr/local
    > /dev/hdb6 1.9G 368M 1.5G 21% /var
    > /dev/hda2 2.0G 1.5G 538M 74% /mnt/share
    >
    > "system-config-lvm" says that all my Linux partitions are of a
    > "Uninitialized Disk Entity" class. This is due to the fact that I was
    > not courageous enough to create anything with LVM back then. Suffice
    > to say that nothing has been done to enjoy the benefits of LVM since.
    >
    > Question: Since my RHEL5.1 Tikanga is used as a running & viable
    > system, and as long as I have recent partition backups, would I be
    > able to "Initialize all the Disk Entities" and probably not loose
    > anything? My Red Hat software is up-to the-minute current.
    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    > Onepeanutwhistle


    Hey,

    Redhat has some really good LVM documentation that could probably
    answer all your questions and then some. They will tell you what you
    can and can not do - I have used them many times. Initializing disks
    for LVM if you are not using LVM is not a good idea, especially if you
    are using them. LVM is powerful, but can really bite you quick if you
    make a mistake.

    http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/c...ex-master.html

    JR.


    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  8. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    In article rebelATT@magmaDOTT.ca says...
    > LVM is powerful, but can really bite you quick if you
    > make a mistake.


    Many years ago during an install of FC4 I had lvm installed by default.
    Since my servers are only used by me I don't really need much
    sophistication with regards to disk partitioning. Since then I have had
    nothing but trouble with lvm and it adds a level of complexity I don't
    need. I would never config a disk with lvm ever. YMMV



  9. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    In article rebelATT@magmaDOTT.ca says...
    > LVM is powerful, but can really bite you quick if you
    > make a mistake.


    Many years ago during an install of FC4 I had lvm installed by default.
    Since my servers are only used by me I don't really need much
    sophistication with regards to disk partitioning. Since then I have had
    nothing but trouble with lvm and it adds a level of complexity I don't
    need. I would never config a disk with lvm ever. YMMV



  10. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    In article rebelATT@magmaDOTT.ca says...
    > LVM is powerful, but can really bite you quick if you
    > make a mistake.


    Many years ago during an install of FC4 I had lvm installed by default.
    Since my servers are only used by me I don't really need much
    sophistication with regards to disk partitioning. Since then I have had
    nothing but trouble with lvm and it adds a level of complexity I don't
    need. I would never config a disk with lvm ever. YMMV



  11. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    Mark Anderson wrote:
    > In article rebelATT@magmaDOTT.ca says
    >> LVM is powerful, but can really bite you quick if you
    >> make a mistake.

    >
    > Many years ago during an install of FC4 I had lvm installed by default.
    > Since my servers are only used by me I don't really need much
    > sophistication with regards to disk partitioning. Since then I have had
    > nothing but trouble with lvm and it adds a level of complexity I don't
    > need. I would never config a disk with lvm ever. YMMV
    >
    >


    Really? I actually find it quite mature now versus the FC4 days. I
    like the flexibility it provides on all my systems. Granted, it is (or
    can be) fairly complex, but if you have a really good understanding of
    it, I would think you would not go back. I don't typically add slices
    of disks, I only add entire disks so that helps quite a bit with the
    complexities you mention. I have never really had a problem that was
    not self inflicted! I have recently been working quite a bit with AIX's
    LVM, and *much* prefer the LVM in Linux as it provides bounds more of
    everything, especially stability!

    JR.


    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  12. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    Mark Anderson wrote:
    > In article rebelATT@magmaDOTT.ca says
    >> LVM is powerful, but can really bite you quick if you
    >> make a mistake.

    >
    > Many years ago during an install of FC4 I had lvm installed by default.
    > Since my servers are only used by me I don't really need much
    > sophistication with regards to disk partitioning. Since then I have had
    > nothing but trouble with lvm and it adds a level of complexity I don't
    > need. I would never config a disk with lvm ever. YMMV
    >
    >


    Really? I actually find it quite mature now versus the FC4 days. I
    like the flexibility it provides on all my systems. Granted, it is (or
    can be) fairly complex, but if you have a really good understanding of
    it, I would think you would not go back. I don't typically add slices
    of disks, I only add entire disks so that helps quite a bit with the
    complexities you mention. I have never really had a problem that was
    not self inflicted! I have recently been working quite a bit with AIX's
    LVM, and *much* prefer the LVM in Linux as it provides bounds more of
    everything, especially stability!

    JR.


    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  13. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    Mark Anderson wrote:
    > In article rebelATT@magmaDOTT.ca says
    >> LVM is powerful, but can really bite you quick if you
    >> make a mistake.

    >
    > Many years ago during an install of FC4 I had lvm installed by default.
    > Since my servers are only used by me I don't really need much
    > sophistication with regards to disk partitioning. Since then I have had
    > nothing but trouble with lvm and it adds a level of complexity I don't
    > need. I would never config a disk with lvm ever. YMMV
    >
    >


    Really? I actually find it quite mature now versus the FC4 days. I
    like the flexibility it provides on all my systems. Granted, it is (or
    can be) fairly complex, but if you have a really good understanding of
    it, I would think you would not go back. I don't typically add slices
    of disks, I only add entire disks so that helps quite a bit with the
    complexities you mention. I have never really had a problem that was
    not self inflicted! I have recently been working quite a bit with AIX's
    LVM, and *much* prefer the LVM in Linux as it provides bounds more of
    everything, especially stability!

    JR.


    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  14. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    It's really that I was wondering about the possibility of destroying a
    great amount of effort I've put in my own system. And yes, stability
    is highly prized. The idea of trying one little used partition has
    won
    my interest.

    I have a much older system that I actually could try with Fedora 7
    or Fedora 8 and let LVM have its way with partitions I hadn't put
    so much work into. We also could wait another month or so for
    RHEL 5.2 to come out of beta testing and see if that changes my
    mind. At least system-config-lvm gives a bit of a gui. I suppose
    it would be nice if an LVM wizard was in the works. Perhaps one
    day, GParted will be able to work with LVM too.

    Thank you kindly folks!
    Onepeanutwhistle

  15. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    It's really that I was wondering about the possibility of destroying a
    great amount of effort I've put in my own system. And yes, stability
    is highly prized. The idea of trying one little used partition has
    won
    my interest.

    I have a much older system that I actually could try with Fedora 7
    or Fedora 8 and let LVM have its way with partitions I hadn't put
    so much work into. We also could wait another month or so for
    RHEL 5.2 to come out of beta testing and see if that changes my
    mind. At least system-config-lvm gives a bit of a gui. I suppose
    it would be nice if an LVM wizard was in the works. Perhaps one
    day, GParted will be able to work with LVM too.

    Thank you kindly folks!
    Onepeanutwhistle

  16. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    It's really that I was wondering about the possibility of destroying a
    great amount of effort I've put in my own system. And yes, stability
    is highly prized. The idea of trying one little used partition has
    won
    my interest.

    I have a much older system that I actually could try with Fedora 7
    or Fedora 8 and let LVM have its way with partitions I hadn't put
    so much work into. We also could wait another month or so for
    RHEL 5.2 to come out of beta testing and see if that changes my
    mind. At least system-config-lvm gives a bit of a gui. I suppose
    it would be nice if an LVM wizard was in the works. Perhaps one
    day, GParted will be able to work with LVM too.

    Thank you kindly folks!
    Onepeanutwhistle

  17. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    Mark Anderson writes:

    > In article rebelATT@magmaDOTT.ca says...
    >> LVM is powerful, but can really bite you quick if you
    >> make a mistake.

    >
    > Many years ago during an install of FC4 I had lvm installed by default.
    > Since my servers are only used by me I don't really need much
    > sophistication with regards to disk partitioning. Since then I have had
    > nothing but trouble with lvm and it adds a level of complexity I don't
    > need. I would never config a disk with lvm ever. YMMV


    My mileage is definitely better than yours. I use LVM on dozens of
    RHEL 3/4/5 and Fedora 5/6/7/8 systems, and have never had a single
    problem with it.

    --
    Dave Sill Author, The qmail Handbook
    Oak Ridge National Lab, IT Services

  18. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    Mark Anderson writes:

    > In article rebelATT@magmaDOTT.ca says...
    >> LVM is powerful, but can really bite you quick if you
    >> make a mistake.

    >
    > Many years ago during an install of FC4 I had lvm installed by default.
    > Since my servers are only used by me I don't really need much
    > sophistication with regards to disk partitioning. Since then I have had
    > nothing but trouble with lvm and it adds a level of complexity I don't
    > need. I would never config a disk with lvm ever. YMMV


    My mileage is definitely better than yours. I use LVM on dozens of
    RHEL 3/4/5 and Fedora 5/6/7/8 systems, and have never had a single
    problem with it.

    --
    Dave Sill Author, The qmail Handbook
    Oak Ridge National Lab, IT Services

  19. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    Mark Anderson writes:

    > In article rebelATT@magmaDOTT.ca says...
    >> LVM is powerful, but can really bite you quick if you
    >> make a mistake.

    >
    > Many years ago during an install of FC4 I had lvm installed by default.
    > Since my servers are only used by me I don't really need much
    > sophistication with regards to disk partitioning. Since then I have had
    > nothing but trouble with lvm and it adds a level of complexity I don't
    > need. I would never config a disk with lvm ever. YMMV


    My mileage is definitely better than yours. I use LVM on dozens of
    RHEL 3/4/5 and Fedora 5/6/7/8 systems, and have never had a single
    problem with it.

    --
    Dave Sill Author, The qmail Handbook
    Oak Ridge National Lab, IT Services

  20. Re: Too late for LVM on my working system?

    On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:07:01 -0700, onepeanutwhistle typed this message:

    > It's really that I was wondering about the possibility of destroying a
    > great amount of effort I've put in my own system. And yes, stability is
    > highly prized. The idea of trying one little used partition has won
    > my interest.
    >
    > I have a much older system that I actually could try with Fedora 7 or
    > Fedora 8 and let LVM have its way with partitions I hadn't put so much
    > work into. We also could wait another month or so for RHEL 5.2 to come
    > out of beta testing and see if that changes my mind. At least
    > system-config-lvm gives a bit of a gui. I suppose it would be nice if
    > an LVM wizard was in the works. Perhaps one day, GParted will be able
    > to work with LVM too.
    >
    > Thank you kindly folks!
    > Onepeanutwhistle


    LVM was a problem in FC4 but LVM has matured with better tools. I
    suppose there's cautions regarding RAID drives and very large files.
    Seems like extra overhead, but working the bugs out on a small test
    system is the right approach, in case you crash an LVM volume or
    something.

    I don't use LVM because it interfered with Ext2ifs tool to seamlessly
    access Linux files from Windows. Don't think Ext2ifs has caught up with
    LVM yet.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast