SUMMARY: LVM question on a very old server.

I asked

> I have an EOL server (ultra 5) running an EOL operating system  
> (Solaris
> 8) that only has to stay alive for one more month.  Its replacement is
> almost ready.
>
> Unfortunately this server has an LVM error on it.  I am fairly certain
> that I can do this without a reboot, but I just want a few more eyes  
> to
> verify what I am thinking.
>
> A metadb of the server responds
>
> thumper:/opt/home/cbarnard$ metadb
>        flags           first blk       block count
>     a        u         16              1034            /dev/dsk/
> c1t3d0s5
>     a        u         1050            1034            /dev/dsk/
> c1t3d0s5
>     a        u         2084            1034            /dev/dsk/
> c1t3d0s5
>      W   p  l          16              1034            /dev/dsk/
> c2t3d0s5
>      W   p  l          1050            1034            /dev/dsk/
> c2t3d0s5
>      W   p  l          2084            1034            /dev/dsk/
> c2t3d0s5
> thumper:/opt/home/cbarnard$
>
> The disk c2t3d0 is actually fine, this is the occasional
> 'oh-my-God-where-am-I' hiccup that LVM gets.  So I can just remove the
> three metadb on c2t3d0s5 and re-add them with no problem.  However,  
> the
> three on c1t3d0s5 are not patched into the kernel.  If I do this, none
> of the metadatabases will be patched into the kernel.  Will this cause
> Bad Things or can the OS handle this?

The answer:

The OS had no problem handling this.  All six of my metadb databases  
are not patched into the kernel, but that doesn't exclude them from  
being used.  They will just be patched in on the next reboot.  The  
'patched into the kernel'  flag is more of an FYI than a necessity.



Christopher L. Barnard
-------------------
comment your code as if the maintainer is a homicidal maniac who knows  
where you live.
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers