Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 244744
[RFE] vgsplit check for active LVs may be too restrictive
Last modified: 2014-04-22 09:04:49 EDT
This snip of the code is in question: if ((active = lvs_in_vg_activated(vg_from))) { /* FIXME Remove this restriction */ log_error("Logical volumes in \"%s\" must be inactive", vg_name_from); goto error; } It is not clear if this code is necessary. In particular: 1) is it necessary to check LVs not involved with PVs on the vgsplit cmdline? 2) is it necessary to check activated LVs at all? Initial investigation / discussions indicate at least #1 may not be necessary and perhaps even #2. But it needs checked throughly for all LV types, etc. Excessive restrictions can cause issues that have been seen on the lists: https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2007-June/msg00022.html # vgsplit -v vg00 vg01 /dev/sdb3 Checking for volume group "vg00" Checking for volume group "vg01" Wiping cache of LVM-capable devices Logical volumes in "vg00" must be inactive I did deactivate (lvchange) the lv that is using /dev/sdb3. But that doesn't seem enough. Does vgsplit actually need ALL lvs to be inactive? This makes little sense to me since the other lvs are not affected at all by vgsplit. I've found http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2007-January/msg03485.html which suggests that vgsplit can only be done with all lvs inactive. This would be mean booting from a cdrom for me as my root filesystem is on vg00. So far I have been doing all this online, and I'd like to keep it that way. Is this at all possible? Can someone confirm that vgsplit needs all lvs on the source vg to be inactive?
Alasdair has pointed out that you at least need to check active LVs involved on the cmdline because of the dm table (duh - should have seen that!). Also the UUID change is a problem.
Changes now upstream.
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '9'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 9 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-07-10. Fedora 9 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
This bug needs further investigation - since if the LVs on splitted PV are inactive, it should not require to have inactive also unrelated LVs to vgsplit operation.