Not sure at this moment if it''s the XenU kernel or something with LVM... Yesterday I installed the Xen0 kernel on my primary desktop to try to test xen migration. I built out a couple 4G logical volumes and ran a couple kickstart installations. At one point I tried to expand my /home filesystem (it''s on a /dev/rootvg/home_lv LVM partition). It failed, and then my /home seems to have been remounted as read-only. Long story short, on a reboot the fsck.ext3 informs that the filesystem is larger than the disk and fsck just gives hundreds of errors. I''m going to blow away that LV and try to rebuild it tomorrow, but just curious if anyone else has seen any disk corruption? -- * The Digital Hermit http://www.digitalhermit.com * Unix and Linux Solutions kwan@digitalhermit.com
Hi, On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 19:17 -0500, Kwan Lowe wrote:> Yesterday I installed the Xen0 kernel on my primary desktop to try to test xen > migration. I built out a couple 4G logical volumes and ran a couple kickstart > installations. At one point I tried to expand my /home filesystem (it''s on a > /dev/rootvg/home_lv LVM partition). It failed, and then my /home seems to have been > remounted as read-only. Long story short, on a reboot the fsck.ext3 informs that the > filesystem is larger than the disk and fsck just gives hundreds of errors.Do you have any record of exactly what went wrong --- kernel error logs, etc? It sounds as if the growth of the LV wasn''t propagated to disk, which is bad news. Was /home exported to any of the guests?> I''m going > to blow away that LV and try to rebuild it tomorrow, but just curious if anyone else > has seen any disk corruption?I haven''t seen *any* such problems during all the time I''ve been using and developing on Xen. But virtual storage does give you new ways of shooting yourself in the foot, so there may well be missing safety-nets in some of the tools surrounding Xen. We''d need to work out what went wrong first here to determine how best to guard against it. Cheers, Stephen
Hi , I had an interesting observation the other day with FC5 and xen. I create a 512M Logical volume and exported it to xen guest. When I ran fdisk on it the size of the logical volume shown inside guest was 536MB , which was more than original size of exported logical volume. lvdisplay on the host confirmed the size to be 512MB Thought might be interesting in this context. Regards, Shashin. Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:> Hi, > > On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 19:17 -0500, Kwan Lowe wrote: > > >> Yesterday I installed the Xen0 kernel on my primary desktop to try to test xen >> migration. I built out a couple 4G logical volumes and ran a couple kickstart >> installations. At one point I tried to expand my /home filesystem (it''s on a >> /dev/rootvg/home_lv LVM partition). It failed, and then my /home seems to have been >> remounted as read-only. Long story short, on a reboot the fsck.ext3 informs that the >> filesystem is larger than the disk and fsck just gives hundreds of errors. >> > > Do you have any record of exactly what went wrong --- kernel error logs, > etc? It sounds as if the growth of the LV wasn''t propagated to disk, > which is bad news. Was /home exported to any of the guests? > > >> I''m going >> to blow away that LV and try to rebuild it tomorrow, but just curious if anyone else >> has seen any disk corruption? >> > > I haven''t seen *any* such problems during all the time I''ve been using > and developing on Xen. But virtual storage does give you new ways of > shooting yourself in the foot, so there may well be missing safety-nets > in some of the tools surrounding Xen. We''d need to work out what went > wrong first here to determine how best to guard against it. > > Cheers, > Stephen > > > -- > Fedora-xen mailing list > Fedora-xen@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen >
Hi, On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 01:30 +0200, Shashhin Shinde wrote:> I had an interesting observation the other day with FC5 and xen. I > create a 512M Logical volume > and exported it to xen guest. When I ran fdisk on it the size of the > logical volume shown inside guest > was 536MB , which was more than original size of exported logical > volume. lvdisplay on the host confirmed the size to be 512MB > Thought might be interesting in this context.Sounds like the difference between binary and decimal "MB": 512*1024*1024/1000/1000 is 536 and a bit. --Stephen