On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Dean S. Messing <deanm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Rick Stevens wrote: > <Big Snipolla> >> Perhaps we should take this off-list--I don't know that we want to >> occupy the list's bandwidth with the back-and-forth of geting this >> sorted. When it's fixed, we could post a summary on what we did for >> those who are interested. > > I, for one, would like you to _leave it on the list_ as I am following > and learning. With all the, um, "philosophical discussions" that > spend bandwidth, it is actually refreshing to see the list being used > for "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using > Fedora." Rick offered to post a summary afterwards. This LVM stuff can get tricky and there could be a lot of posting back and forth. > Regarding the actual problem the OP seems to have, it seems to me (not > being an LVM expert) from his output that he has a Volume Group (00) > that spans sda2 and sdb2, two LVs that are defined in the VG, both of > which sit on sdb2, but no LV defined on sda2. Is this unusual? The OP has not added the second drive to the original VG. That's why he has to clearly identify which disk belongs where. > There also seems to be some confusion between "Volume Group" and > "Volume" (ie. LV), which is the root of some misunderstanding on the > OP's part. Well, to clarify: a Volume Group (VG) is just available space made up of one or more partitions. Each partition is known as a Physical Volume (PV). You can create Logical Volumes (LV) in a VG. The LVs are not aware of disk partitions, they only know of Physical Extents (PE). > Again, I may be all wet on this but that's what his output and > comments indicate to me. > > Dean -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
