copying lvm with the same name

[Aldo Foot]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Frank Cox <theatre at sasktel.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:07:28 -0700
> Rick Stevens wrote:
>
>> We have a serious conflict here.  The df command shows you as on sda,
>> but LVM is reporting sdb.  My gut reaction is to have you do a:
>>
>>       vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2
>>
>> and see if it would be successful.  If so, then remove the "--test" and
>> cross your fingers.
>
> [root at mutt temp]# vgreduce --test VolGroup00 /dev/sdb2
>  Test mode: Metadata will NOT be updated.
>  Physical Volume "/dev/sdb2" not found in Volume Group "VolGroup00"
>
> This is consistent with the fact that the "active" Volume Group that I'm using
> is not on /dev/sdb2.  It's just the "lvdisplay -vm" command that shows it as
> being in use.
>
> --
> MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
>

Perhaps this could be the solution: do "man vgrename"

Rename the VG on the sdb2 to something else other than VolGroup00.

        vgrename  VolGroup00  <some_VG_name>

The idea is to take out the name duplicity out of the equation.

Also in your third post I noticed that there is continuity in the
Physical Extents as if both LVs (LogVol00 and LogVol01) are in the
same VG. First LogVol00 goes  from "0 to 8872", then LogVol01 goes
from "8873 to 8934". This shows that both seem to be in the same
"disk space" sort of speak. But both LogVol00 and LogVol01 are
different as shown by the different UUID.
Also the LogVol01 is quite small --about 1.9GB.

~af