Dne 23. 09. 21 v 20:03 alessandro macuz napsal(a):
> Thanks Zdenek,
>
> so it might be that metadata is corrupted somehow and hence the pvs program 
> doesn't recognize that partition as physical volume?
> That may explain why lvmdiskscan reports physical disks (by just looking at 
> the partition type 8e) and pvs completely ignores it.
> Am I correct?
>

Hi


Yes - if your disk header part has lost/damaged its content - it will not be 
recognized as PV - thus completely ignored.

Note - the easiest is to check the verbose output of  'pvs -vvv' - where you 
could follow up what is command doing in relatively 'readable' form - if you 
can't follow it - just attach to the email for overlook why could be your disk 
eventually ignored.

Note - the other reason could be the device got filtered by some filter - but 
I assume you've not changed your configuration on your system ?


Zdenek


> Le jeu. 23 sept. 2021 à 15:52, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@redhat.com> a écrit :
>
>     Dne 22. 09. 21 v 18:48 alessandro macuz napsal(a):
>     > fdisk correctly identifies the extended partition as 8e.
>     > I wonder which kind of data lvmdiskscan and pvs use in order to list LVM
>     > physical volumes.
>     > Does PVS check some specific metadata within the partition without just
>     > relying on the type of partition displayed by fdisk?
>     >
>     >
>
>     Hi
>
>     Yes - PVs do have header signature keeping information about PV attributes
>     and also has the storage area to keep lvm2 metadata.
>
>     Partition flags known to fdisk are irrelevant.
>
>
>     Regards
>
>     Zdenek
>