[linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?

[linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?

[Tomasz Chmielewski]

Recently, I used "vgdisplay", and noticed that it gives a "checksum error":

# vgdisplay
   /dev/sda2: Checksum error
   --- Volume group ---
   VG Name               LVM2
   System ID
   Format                lvm2
   Metadata Areas        1
   Metadata Sequence No  49
   VG Access             read/write
   VG Status             resizable
   MAX LV                0
   Cur LV                34
   Open LV               34
   Max PV                0
   Cur PV                1
   Act PV                1
   VG Size               743.16 GB
   PE Size               4.00 MB
   Total PE              190250
   Alloc PE / Size       175807 / 686.75 GB
   Free  PE / Size       14443 / 56.42 GB
   VG UUID               yV2ADe-MeJd-dHbd-ExLP-AIu3-OTA2-u46qhl


Should I be scared? What does it mean? What should I do about it? I 
wouldn't like to loose the data.

If it helps, my setup looks like that:

HDD1-sda2-\
HDD2-sdb2-|__RAID-10--LVM-2
HDD3-sdc2-|
HDD4-sdd2-/

I'm running 2.6.17.8 kernel.


-- 
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org

Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?

[Tomasz Chmielewski]

Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
> Recently, I used "vgdisplay", and noticed that it gives a "checksum error":
> 
> # vgdisplay
>   /dev/sda2: Checksum error
>   --- Volume group ---
>   VG Name               LVM2
>   System ID
>   Format                lvm2
>   Metadata Areas        1
>   Metadata Sequence No  49
>   VG Access             read/write
>   VG Status             resizable
>   MAX LV                0
>   Cur LV                34
>   Open LV               34
>   Max PV                0
>   Cur PV                1
>   Act PV                1
>   VG Size               743.16 GB
>   PE Size               4.00 MB
>   Total PE              190250
>   Alloc PE / Size       175807 / 686.75 GB
>   Free  PE / Size       14443 / 56.42 GB
>   VG UUID               yV2ADe-MeJd-dHbd-ExLP-AIu3-OTA2-u46qhl
> 
> 
> Should I be scared? What does it mean? What should I do about it? I 
> wouldn't like to loose the data.
> 
> If it helps, my setup looks like that:
> 
> HDD1-sda2-\
> HDD2-sdb2-|__RAID-10--LVM-2
> HDD3-sdc2-|
> HDD4-sdd2-/
> 
> I'm running 2.6.17.8 kernel.

Hmmm... isn't it something that tells about the history of that system?

# lvmdiskscan | egrep '(sd|md)'
   /dev/sda2: Checksum error
   /dev/md0                      [        1.03 GB]
   /dev/md1                      [        1.03 GB]
   /dev/sda2                     [      371.58 GB] LVM physical volume
   /dev/md2                      [      743.16 GB] LVM physical volume
   /dev/sdb2                     [      371.58 GB]
   /dev/sdc2                     [      371.58 GB]
   /dev/sdd2                     [      371.58 GB]


/dev/md0 is RAID-1  -> swap
/dev/md1 is RAID-1  -> root filesystem
/dev/md2 is RAID-10 -> all LVM volumes


So this basically means, that LVM was set up on /dev/sda2 some time ago, 
but it was never removed from there - instead, RAID-10 was set up on 
that partition?

Should I do something to fix the things? What?


-- 
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org

Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?

[Luca Berra]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 04:23:33PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
>>Recently, I used "vgdisplay", and noticed that it gives a "checksum error":
>>
>># vgdisplay
>>   /dev/sda2: Checksum error
....
>>
>>Should I be scared? What does it mean? What should I do about it? I 
>>wouldn't like to loose the data.
>>
>>If it helps, my setup looks like that:
>>
>>HDD1-sda2-\
>>HDD2-sdb2-|__RAID-10--LVM-2
>>HDD3-sdc2-|
>>HDD4-sdd2-/
>>
>>I'm running 2.6.17.8 kernel.
>
...
>
>So this basically means, that LVM was set up on /dev/sda2 some time ago, 
>but it was never removed from there - instead, RAID-10 was set up on 
>that partition?

I don't think so. if sda2 is part of a raid10 md array probably the
beginning sector of the md device maps to the beginning sector of the
real device, hence lvm will find an lvm signature on /dev/sda2.

>Should I do something to fix the things? What?
yes, re-enable md_component_detection in lvm.conf, why did you disable
that?

L.

-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
        Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
 /"\
 \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
  X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
 / \

Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?

[Tomasz Chmielewski]

Luca Berra schrieb:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 04:23:33PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>> Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
>>> Recently, I used "vgdisplay", and noticed that it gives a "checksum 
>>> error":
>>>
>>> # vgdisplay
>>>   /dev/sda2: Checksum error
> ....
>>>
>>> Should I be scared? What does it mean? What should I do about it? I 
>>> wouldn't like to loose the data.
>>>
>>> If it helps, my setup looks like that:
>>>
>>> HDD1-sda2-\
>>> HDD2-sdb2-|__RAID-10--LVM-2
>>> HDD3-sdc2-|
>>> HDD4-sdd2-/
>>>
>>> I'm running 2.6.17.8 kernel.
>>
> ...
>>
>> So this basically means, that LVM was set up on /dev/sda2 some time 
>> ago, but it was never removed from there - instead, RAID-10 was set up 
>> on that partition?
> 
> I don't think so. if sda2 is part of a raid10 md array probably the
> beginning sector of the md device maps to the beginning sector of the
> real device, hence lvm will find an lvm signature on /dev/sda2.

Is there a way to check if it's really the case?

There's something wrong with /dev/sda2 - lvmdiskscan claims it's a 
371.58 GB LVM physical volume, while /dev/md2 is the physical volume I use.

   /dev/sda2                     [      371.58 GB] LVM physical volume
   /dev/md2                      [      743.16 GB] LVM physical volume


>> Should I do something to fix the things? What?
> yes, re-enable md_component_detection in lvm.conf, why did you disable
> that?

Certainly I didn't touch anything in /etc/lvm/*.
If I look into /etc/lvm/lvm.conf, it says:

devices {
(...)
     # By default, LVM2 will ignore devices used as components of
     # software RAID (md) devices by looking for md superblocks.
     # 1 enables; 0 disables.
     md_component_detection = 1
}

It's enabled.

So the problem is somewhere else. Where?


BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).

"smartctl" says all four disks are fine (they are quite new, too), so 
it's definitely not a hardware problem.


I guess one way to fix it would be mark all partitions faulty on 
/dev/sda, and then, to recreate the RAIDs.
But I'm curious to know how could I handle such a situation if I didn't 
have RAID.



-- 
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org

Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?

[Luca Berra]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>>So this basically means, that LVM was set up on /dev/sda2 some time 
>>>ago, but it was never removed from there - instead, RAID-10 was set up 
>>>on that partition?
>>
>>I don't think so. if sda2 is part of a raid10 md array probably the
>>beginning sector of the md device maps to the beginning sector of the
>>real device, hence lvm will find an lvm signature on /dev/sda2.
>
>Is there a way to check if it's really the case?

dd?

>There's something wrong with /dev/sda2 - lvmdiskscan claims it's a 
>371.58 GB LVM physical volume, while /dev/md2 is the physical volume I use.
>
>   /dev/sda2                     [      371.58 GB] LVM physical volume
>   /dev/md2                      [      743.16 GB] LVM physical volume
>
>
>>>Should I do something to fix the things? What?
>>yes, re-enable md_component_detection in lvm.conf, why did you disable
>>that?
>
>Certainly I didn't touch anything in /etc/lvm/*.
>If I look into /etc/lvm/lvm.conf, it says:
>
>devices {
>(...)
>     # By default, LVM2 will ignore devices used as components of
>     # software RAID (md) devices by looking for md superblocks.
>     # 1 enables; 0 disables.
>     md_component_detection = 1
>}
>
>It's enabled.
>
>So the problem is somewhere else. Where?

with md_component_detection enabled lvm should ignore /dev/sda2.
can you send the output of lvmdiskscan -vvv?

>BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
mmm i don't have an arm maybe this is the issue why lvm does not
understand that sda2 is a md component?!?

>"smartctl" says all four disks are fine (they are quite new, too), so 
>it's definitely not a hardware problem.
sure it is not an hw problem do not worry.

>I guess one way to fix it would be mark all partitions faulty on 
>/dev/sda, and then, to recreate the RAIDs.
>But I'm curious to know how could I handle such a situation if I didn't 
>have RAID.
what would it fix? you have no problem except lvm2 believing sda2 is an
lvm volume which is not.

-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
        Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
 /"\
 \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
  X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
 / \

Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?

[Alasdair G Kergon]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> >BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
> mmm i don't have an arm maybe this is the issue why lvm does not
> understand that sda2 is a md component?!?
 
I've not followed this thread, but you must use version 2.02.21 or later
for the ARM architecture with md (or backport the patch).

Alasdair
-- 
agk@redhat.com

Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?

[Tomasz Chmielewski]

Alasdair G Kergon schrieb:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>> BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
>> mmm i don't have an arm maybe this is the issue why lvm does not
>> understand that sda2 is a md component?!?
>  
> I've not followed this thread, but you must use version 2.02.21 or later
> for the ARM architecture with md (or backport the patch).

Hmm, I must try that.

I'll let the list know in a week or so.

-- 
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org

Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?

[Tomasz Chmielewski]

Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
> Alasdair G Kergon schrieb:
>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>>> BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
>>> mmm i don't have an arm maybe this is the issue why lvm does not
>>> understand that sda2 is a md component?!?
>>  
>> I've not followed this thread, but you must use version 2.02.21 or later
>> for the ARM architecture with md (or backport the patch).
> 
> Hmm, I must try that.
> 
> I'll let the list know in a week or so.

Hmm, I can't compile that:

(...)
gcc -c -I. -I../include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H  -fPIC -Wall -Wundef -Wshadow 
-Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations 
-Wnested-externs -Winline -Wmissing-noreturn -O2 striped/striped.c -o 
striped/striped.o
report/report.c:67: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:67: warning: its scope is only this definition or 
declaration, which is probably not what you want
report/report.c:67: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_string_disp?:
report/report.c:69: warning: implicit declaration of function 
?dm_report_field_string?
report/report.c:69: warning: nested extern declaration of 
?dm_report_field_string?
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:74: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:74: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:83: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:83: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_devices_disp?:
report/report.c:116: warning: implicit declaration of function ?dm_snprintf?
report/report.c:116: warning: nested extern declaration of ?dm_snprintf?
report/report.c:139: warning: implicit declaration of function 
?dm_report_field_set_value?
report/report.c:139: warning: nested extern declaration of 
?dm_report_field_set_value?
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:146: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:146: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:176: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:176: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_modules_disp?:
report/report.c:189: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_tags_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:189: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_tags_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:194: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:194: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_vgfmt_disp?:
report/report.c:203: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_string_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:203: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_string_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:208: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:208: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_pvfmt_disp?:
report/report.c:218: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_string_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:218: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_string_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:223: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:223: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_lvkmaj_disp?:
report/report.c:230: warning: implicit declaration of function 
?dm_report_field_int?
report/report.c:230: warning: nested extern declaration of 
?dm_report_field_int?
report/report.c:232: warning: implicit declaration of function 
?dm_report_field_uint64?
report/report.c:232: warning: nested extern declaration of 
?dm_report_field_uint64?
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:237: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:237: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:251: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:251: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:336: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:336: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:362: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:362: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:406: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:406: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:421: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:421: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:435: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:435: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:453: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:453: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:487: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:487: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:506: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:506: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:536: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:536: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:565: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:565: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_vgsize_disp?:
report/report.c:572: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:572: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:577: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:577: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_segstart_disp?:
report/report.c:584: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:584: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:589: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:589: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_segsize_disp?:
report/report.c:596: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:596: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:601: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:601: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_chunksize_disp?:
report/report.c:611: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:611: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:616: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:616: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_pvused_disp?:
report/report.c:627: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:627: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:632: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:632: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_pvfree_disp?:
report/report.c:643: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:643: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:648: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:648: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_pvsize_disp?:
report/report.c:659: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:659: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:664: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:664: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_devsize_disp?:
report/report.c:672: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:672: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:677: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:677: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_vgfree_disp?:
report/report.c:684: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:684: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:689: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:689: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:709: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:709: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_uint32_disp?:
report/report.c:711: warning: implicit declaration of function 
?dm_report_field_uint32?
report/report.c:711: warning: nested extern declaration of 
?dm_report_field_uint32?
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:716: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:716: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_int32_disp?:
report/report.c:718: warning: implicit declaration of function 
?dm_report_field_int32?
report/report.c:718: warning: nested extern declaration of 
?dm_report_field_int32?
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:723: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:723: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_lvsegcount_disp?:
report/report.c:730: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_uint32_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:730: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_uint32_disp? from 
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:735: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:735: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:785: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:785: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside 
parameter list
report/report.c:856: error: array type has incomplete element type
report/report.c:873: error: array type has incomplete element type
In file included from report/report.c:874:
report/columns.h:21: error: ?DM_REPORT_FIELD_TYPE_STRING? undeclared 
here (not in a function)
report/columns.h:24: error: ?DM_REPORT_FIELD_TYPE_NUMBER? undeclared 
here (not in a function)
report/report.c: In function ?report_init?:
report/report.c:889: error: ?DM_REPORT_OUTPUT_ALIGNED? undeclared (first 
use in this function)
report/report.c:889: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only 
once
report/report.c:889: error: for each function it appears in.)
report/report.c:892: error: ?DM_REPORT_OUTPUT_BUFFERED? undeclared 
(first use in this function)
report/report.c:895: error: ?DM_REPORT_OUTPUT_HEADINGS? undeclared 
(first use in this function)
report/report.c:897: warning: implicit declaration of function 
?dm_report_init?
report/report.c:897: warning: nested extern declaration of ?dm_report_init?
report/report.c:898: warning: return makes pointer from integer without 
a cast
report/report.c: In function ?report_object?:
report/report.c:916: warning: implicit declaration of function 
?dm_report_object?
report/report.c:916: warning: nested extern declaration of 
?dm_report_object?
make[1]: *** [report/report.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/lvm2/LVM2.2.02.22/lib'
make: *** [lib] Error 2



-- 
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org

Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?

[Luca Berra]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:55:42PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
>>Alasdair G Kergon schrieb:
>>>On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
>>>>On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>>>>BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
>>>>mmm i don't have an arm maybe this is the issue why lvm does not
>>>>understand that sda2 is a md component?!?
>>>  
>>>I've not followed this thread, but you must use version 2.02.21 or later
>>>for the ARM architecture with md (or backport the patch).
>>
>>Hmm, I must try that.
>>
>>I'll let the list know in a week or so.
>
>Hmm, I can't compile that:
>
>(...)
>gcc -c -I. -I../include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H  -fPIC -Wall -Wundef -Wshadow 
>-Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations 
>-Wnested-externs -Winline -Wmissing-noreturn -O2 striped/striped.c -o 
>striped/striped.o
>report/report.c:67: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
>parameter list
Did you update device-mapper as well?

Anyway the patch to support both endian versions of the md superblock is
very small and can be applied to lvm earlier than 2.02.21

http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/LVM2/lib/device/dev-md.c.diff?r1=1.3&r2=1.4&cvsroot=lvm2

L.


-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
        Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
 /"\
 \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
  X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
 / \

Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?

[Tomasz Chmielewski]

Luca Berra schrieb:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:55:42PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>> Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
>>> Alasdair G Kergon schrieb:
>>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>>>>> BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
>>>>> mmm i don't have an arm maybe this is the issue why lvm does not
>>>>> understand that sda2 is a md component?!?
>>>>  
>>>> I've not followed this thread, but you must use version 2.02.21 or 
>>>> later
>>>> for the ARM architecture with md (or backport the patch).
>>>
>>> Hmm, I must try that.
>>>
>>> I'll let the list know in a week or so.
>>
>> Hmm, I can't compile that:
>>
>> (...)
>> gcc -c -I. -I../include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H  -fPIC -Wall -Wundef -Wshadow 
>> -Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes 
>> -Wmissing-declarations -Wnested-externs -Winline -Wmissing-noreturn 
>> -O2 striped/striped.c -o striped/striped.o
>> report/report.c:67: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside 
>> parameter list
> Did you update device-mapper as well?
> 
> Anyway the patch to support both endian versions of the md superblock is
> very small and can be applied to lvm earlier than 2.02.21
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/LVM2/lib/device/dev-md.c.diff?r1=1.3&r2=1.4&cvsroot=lvm2 

Curiously, I updated lvm to Debian's 2.02.06-3, rebooted (machine was in 
a rather weird state), and the issue is gone.

With Debian's libdevmapper-dev 1.02.08-1 it doesn't compile; I didn't 
try to upgrade it anymore.


-- 
Tomasz Chmielewski

Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?

[Tomasz Chmielewski]

Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:

(...)

> Curiously, I updated lvm to Debian's 2.02.06-3, rebooted (machine was in 
> a rather weird state), and the issue is gone.
> 
> With Debian's libdevmapper-dev 1.02.08-1 it doesn't compile; I didn't 
> try to upgrade it anymore.

As described in another post from today ("moving logical volumes to 
another system *remotely* - how?"), perhaps the issue had nothing to do 
with lvm tools, but with kernel?

I use 2.6.17.8 on that ARM machine, the kernel oopses after I create a 
snapshot, invalidate it (make it full), and try to remove it.

I'll try to upgrade to a newest stable kernel to see if anything changed 
(it will take some time, though).


-- 
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org