ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Today is the day from Hell!

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IT Discussion
    xenserver 6.5
    44 Posts 9 Posters 5.6k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • A
      Alex Sage
      last edited by

      @Dashrender Hope your having a better day today 🙂

      DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
      • DashrenderD
        Dashrender @Alex Sage
        last edited by

        @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.

        MattSpellerM 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • MattSpellerM
          MattSpeller @Dashrender
          last edited by

          @Dashrender said in 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

          A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
          • A
            Alex Sage @MattSpeller
            last edited by

            @MattSpeller contacts with ridiculous buyouts work well too.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • BRRABillB
              BRRABill
              last edited by

              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.)

              travisdh1T scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • travisdh1T
                travisdh1 @BRRABill
                last edited by

                @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.

                BRRABillB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • BRRABillB
                  BRRABill @travisdh1
                  last edited by

                  @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.

                  scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • scottalanmillerS
                    scottalanmiller @BRRABill
                    last edited by

                    @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.

                    BRRABillB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • BRRABillB
                      BRRABill @scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      @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?

                      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller @BRRABill
                        last edited by

                        @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.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                        • scottalanmillerS
                          scottalanmiller @BRRABill
                          last edited by

                          @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.

                          BRRABillB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • BRRABillB
                            BRRABill @scottalanmiller
                            last edited by

                            @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?

                            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • scottalanmillerS
                              scottalanmiller @BRRABill
                              last edited by

                              @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.

                              BRRABillB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • BRRABillB
                                BRRABill @scottalanmiller
                                last edited by

                                @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?

                                scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • scottalanmillerS
                                  scottalanmiller @BRRABill
                                  last edited by

                                  @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.

                                  BRRABillB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • BRRABillB
                                    BRRABill @scottalanmiller
                                    last edited by

                                    @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.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • 1
                                    • 2
                                    • 3
                                    • 2 / 3
                                    • First post
                                      Last post