Today is the day from Hell!

@aaronstuder said in Today is the day from Hell!:

@Dashrender Hope your having a better day today

I'm having an OK one. Now if we could just keep employees from quitting.

I like a combination of leg hold traps and empty promises

Alex Sage

@MattSpeller contacts with ridiculous buyouts work well too.

BRRABill

In the vein of EXT vs LVM and LVM "partitions"....

In the directions, it says to find the SCSI ID of the device/partition where the SR data is stored.

Here is my list.


lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  9 Jul 28 10:15 ata-HITACHI_HTS725050A9A364_101114PCK404VLKX3J2J -> ../../sda
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  9 Jul 28 10:15 ata-KINGSTON_KW-S34480-4W1_50026B7256062EA5 -> ../../sdb
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  9 Jul 28 10:15 ata-WDC_WD800JD-75MSA3_WD-WMAM9CVU1256 -> ../../sdc
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:15 ata-WDC_WD800JD-75MSA3_WD-WMAM9CVU1256-part1 -> ../../sdc1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:15 ata-WDC_WD800JD-75MSA3_WD-WMAM9CVU1256-part2 -> ../../sdc2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:15 ata-WDC_WD800JD-75MSA3_WD-WMAM9CVU1256-part3 -> ../../sdc3
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:15 ata-WDC_WD800JD-75MSA3_WD-WMAM9CVU1256-part5 -> ../../sdc5
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:15 ata-WDC_WD800JD-75MSA3_WD-WMAM9CVU1256-part6 -> ../../sdc6
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 11:14 dm-name-XSLocalEXT--40f7cced--9587--c38f--e152--057e4ec2b2d0-40f7cced--9587--c38f--e152--057e4ec2b2d0 -> ../../dm-1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:04 dm-name-XSLocalEXT--dba1e375--4e51--7e22--a64b--e7bcc39db67a-dba1e375--4e51--7e22--a64b--e7bcc39db67a -> ../../dm-0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 11:14 dm-uuid-LVM-3F38x8Jz47oaL9oGSflGJbtudHmg0iB58aT2PLBzJ1blhfOYFHYsKioY3LpIVhvh -> ../../dm-1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:04 dm-uuid-LVM-ssNVRZji8uJzgesTM3EGZ0vTo7k9MEjd3K9U1rXFHGTNWolwQ8eAe363oDjRu34r -> ../../dm-0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  9 Jul 28 10:15 wwn-0x5000cca5b5f70e1c -> ../../sda
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  9 Jul 28 10:15 wwn-0x50026b7256062ea5 -> ../../sdb

Because XS by default uses the entire SR storage device as LVM, with an EXT parition, is that why you'd select the whole device here? (I selected ata-KINGSTON_KW-S34480-4W1_50026B7256062EA5 (/dev/sdb) from my list.)

travisdh1

@BRRABill It wan'ts the SCSI ID, because that ID shouldn't ever change. That same drive might become sdd if you add/remove drives, but the SCSI ID will remain the same.

BRRABill

@travisdh1 said in Today is the day from Hell!:

@BRRABill It wan'ts the SCSI ID, because that ID shouldn't ever change. That same drive might become sdd if you add/remove drives, but the SCSI ID will remain the same.

What I mean is, it says drive or partition.

So if the entire drive is using a LVM "partition" than it doesn't show as a partition. You would just give it the entire drive SCSI ID.

But, say it was on /sdc5 ... you'd give it the SCSI ID for that partition?

Still just shoring up my EXT/LVM knowledge.

scottalanmiller

@BRRABill said in Today is the day from Hell!:

So if the entire drive is using a LVM "partition" than it doesn't show as a partition. You would just give it the entire drive SCSI ID.

But, say it was on /sdc5 ... you'd give it the SCSI ID for that partition?

This is confusing, so maybe this will help...

/dev/sdc is a drive
/dev/sdc5 is a partition on that drive

If you put LVM on /dev/sdc there is no partitions and LVM uses the entire drive.
If you put LVM on /dev/sdc5 there is a partition and LVM uses the entire partition. That partition MIGHT use the entire drive or not.

BRRABill

@scottalanmiller said in Today is the day from Hell!:

@BRRABill said in Today is the day from Hell!:

So if the entire drive is using a LVM "partition" than it doesn't show as a partition. You would just give it the entire drive SCSI ID.

But, say it was on /sdc5 ... you'd give it the SCSI ID for that partition?

This is confusing, so maybe this will help...

/dev/sdc is a drive
/dev/sdc5 is a partition on that drive

If you put LVM on /dev/sdc there is no partitions and LVM uses the entire drive.
If you put LVM on /dev/sdc5 there is a partition and LVM uses the entire partition. That partition MIGHT use the entire drive or not.

What I think is still getting me is that the SR is really EXT on the LVM controlled drive.

So why wouldn't you give it the SCSI ID of that, instead of the entire drive?

What if there was more than one LV on the LVM controlled drive, and each had EXT?

Or am I still confusing partitions and file systems?

scottalanmiller

@BRRABill said in Today is the day from Hell!:

@scottalanmiller said in Today is the day from Hell!:

@BRRABill said in Today is the day from Hell!:

So if the entire drive is using a LVM "partition" than it doesn't show as a partition. You would just give it the entire drive SCSI ID.

But, say it was on /sdc5 ... you'd give it the SCSI ID for that partition?

This is confusing, so maybe this will help...

/dev/sdc is a drive
/dev/sdc5 is a partition on that drive

If you put LVM on /dev/sdc there is no partitions and LVM uses the entire drive.
If you put LVM on /dev/sdc5 there is a partition and LVM uses the entire partition. That partition MIGHT use the entire drive or not.

What I think is still getting me is that the SR is really EXT on the LVM controlled drive.

So why wouldn't you give it the SCSI ID of that, instead of the entire drive?

What if there was more than one LV on the LVM controlled drive, and each had EXT?

Or am I still confusing partitions and file systems?

SCSI ID is about a block device. Filesystem is file, not block. The filesystem is what converts a block device into a file device. If that's helpful.

scottalanmiller

@BRRABill said in Today is the day from Hell!:

In the vein of EXT vs LVM and LVM "partitions"....

In the directions, it says to find the SCSI ID of the device/partition where the SR data is stored.

Here is my list.


lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  9 Jul 28 10:15 ata-HITACHI_HTS725050A9A364_101114PCK404VLKX3J2J -> ../../sda
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  9 Jul 28 10:15 ata-KINGSTON_KW-S34480-4W1_50026B7256062EA5 -> ../../sdb
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  9 Jul 28 10:15 ata-WDC_WD800JD-75MSA3_WD-WMAM9CVU1256 -> ../../sdc
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:15 ata-WDC_WD800JD-75MSA3_WD-WMAM9CVU1256-part1 -> ../../sdc1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:15 ata-WDC_WD800JD-75MSA3_WD-WMAM9CVU1256-part2 -> ../../sdc2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:15 ata-WDC_WD800JD-75MSA3_WD-WMAM9CVU1256-part3 -> ../../sdc3
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:15 ata-WDC_WD800JD-75MSA3_WD-WMAM9CVU1256-part5 -> ../../sdc5
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:15 ata-WDC_WD800JD-75MSA3_WD-WMAM9CVU1256-part6 -> ../../sdc6
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 11:14 dm-name-XSLocalEXT--40f7cced--9587--c38f--e152--057e4ec2b2d0-40f7cced--9587--c38f--e152--057e4ec2b2d0 -> ../../dm-1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:04 dm-name-XSLocalEXT--dba1e375--4e51--7e22--a64b--e7bcc39db67a-dba1e375--4e51--7e22--a64b--e7bcc39db67a -> ../../dm-0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 11:14 dm-uuid-LVM-3F38x8Jz47oaL9oGSflGJbtudHmg0iB58aT2PLBzJ1blhfOYFHYsKioY3LpIVhvh -> ../../dm-1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 28 10:04 dm-uuid-LVM-ssNVRZji8uJzgesTM3EGZ0vTo7k9MEjd3K9U1rXFHGTNWolwQ8eAe363oDjRu34r -> ../../dm-0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  9 Jul 28 10:15 wwn-0x5000cca5b5f70e1c -> ../../sda
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  9 Jul 28 10:15 wwn-0x50026b7256062ea5 -> ../../sdb

Because XS by default uses the entire SR storage device as LVM, with an EXT parition, is that why you'd select the whole device here? (I selected ata-KINGSTON_KW-S34480-4W1_50026B7256062EA5 (/dev/sdb) from my list.)

It's because it wants control and it needs to know what underlying block device you want to hand to it, not one that you've virtualized on top.

BRRABill

@scottalanmiller said i

It's because it wants control and it needs to know what underlying block device you want to hand to it, not one that you've virtualized on top.

So what would happen if there were indeed more LVs on that block device?

scottalanmiller

@BRRABill said in Today is the day from Hell!:

@scottalanmiller said i

It's because it wants control and it needs to know what underlying block device you want to hand to it, not one that you've virtualized on top.

So what would happen if there were indeed more LVs on that block device?

ah, I see the question... you are wondering if you resize will XS complain because it is expecting to control the entire thing? that's a good point.

That would suggest that partitioning manually would be better, which sucks as an answer.

BRRABill

@scottalanmiller said in Today is the day from Hell!:

@BRRABill said in Today is the day from Hell!:

@scottalanmiller said i

It's because it wants control and it needs to know what underlying block device you want to hand to it, not one that you've virtualized on top.

So what would happen if there were indeed more LVs on that block device?

ah, I see the question... you are wondering if you resize will XS complain because it is expecting to control the entire thing? that's a good point.

That would suggest that partitioning manually would be better, which sucks as an answer.

Just a general question for Linux knowledge.

But yes, that is my question exactly for XS usage.

It seems like it wants the entire block device, wouldn't you agree?

scottalanmiller

@BRRABill said in Today is the day from Hell!:

@scottalanmiller said in Today is the day from Hell!:

@BRRABill said in Today is the day from Hell!:

@scottalanmiller said i

It's because it wants control and it needs to know what underlying block device you want to hand to it, not one that you've virtualized on top.

So what would happen if there were indeed more LVs on that block device?

ah, I see the question... you are wondering if you resize will XS complain because it is expecting to control the entire thing? that's a good point.

That would suggest that partitioning manually would be better, which sucks as an answer.

Just a general question for Linux knowledge.

But yes, that is my question exactly for XS usage.

It seems like it wants the entire block device, wouldn't you agree?

Seems that way, but worth some testing.

BRRABill

@scottalanmiller said

Seems that way, but worth some testing.

I'm going to test the "add folder to SR" theory soon.

Then I can move on to SRs and partitions.