Hide Forgot
To summarize: Whether Jonathan's patch goes in or not, we'll end up with the event monitoring daemon not getting started at boot time. So we need to activate it later (sometime after /usr is mounted). This BZ is opened to make that happen. Since we're doing that, I'll also change the lvm.static vgchange to prevent it from trying to start the monitoring too and circumvent the error messages.
Wait, why is the command *now* starting a daemon on LVM activation? That should be done either a) via udev rules or b) via a separate initscript. I don't see how --monitor yes should ever be the default.
Created attachment 130978 [details] proposed patch This patch adds "--monitor n" to the initscripts, though Bill's suggestion to make that the default may be a better way to go. ...actually, I seem to now be getting different results when using "--monitor n". After a fresh reboot, with this patch: [root@x330-2 ~]# vgchange -an testvg-lv1: event deregistration failed: No such device testvg-lv2: event deregistration failed: No such device 0 logical volume(s) in volume group "testvg" now active [root@x330-2 ~]# vgchange -an --monitor n 0 logical volume(s) in volume group "testvg" now active [root@x330-2 ~]# vgchange --monitor n [root@x330-2 ~]# vgchange -ay [root@x330-2 ~]# lvm.static vgchange -ay --monitor n 2 logical volume(s) in volume group "testvg" now active [root@x330-2 ~]# lvm.static vgchange -ay --monitor n testvg-lv1: event deregistration failed: No such device Failed to unregister logical volume, lv1 <hang here> So now I'm not so sure that "--monitor n" is actually helping here.
Firstly, when the dmeventd patch goes in, it should _not_ hang. At which point, this may turn into an LVM bug. It is confusing whether the '--monitor n' in the last two commands means "don't perform any monitoring ops" or "unmonitor all devices". Seems to me it is the latter. The '[root@x330-2 ~]# vgchange -ay' loaded and monitored the devices. The following '[root@x330-2 ~]# lvm.static vgchange -ay --monitor n' are unmonitorring them... I'll test this more and see what bugs exist with the upcomming code.
Some fixes and workarounds added to 2.02.06-4.0 to address several of the problems mentioned on this bug.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2006-0504.html