From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266001AbUAKXFh (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:05:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266008AbUAKXFh (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:05:37 -0500 Received: from scrat.hensema.net ([62.212.82.150]:10926 "EHLO scrat.hensema.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266001AbUAKXFc (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:05:32 -0500 From: Erik Hensema Subject: Re: LVM migration for 2.4->2.6, fallback path? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:05:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20040111222223.GA9884@merlin.emma.line.org> Reply-To: erik@hensema.net User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Matthias Andree (matthias.andree@gmx.de) wrote: > Hi, > > I understand that the following three combinations work (assuming > 2.4.24/2.6.1): > > Userspace Kernelspace > ------------------------------------------ > LVM1 2.4 LVM > LVM2 2.4 + devmapper patch > LVM2 2.6 > > But will LVM2 + 2.4 LVM work? LVM1 + 2.6 will not. Just don't resize your volumes in 2.6, and you'll be fine. Resizing causes 'vendor lock in' though ;-) > I presume neither works, but if there is a way, I'd like to know to save > myself some work. > > Oh, and while I'm at it, what good is the "old ioctl" switch in kernel > space? I am currently trying without and it works fine with a current > LVM2 version (which is presumably how things are meant to be). Just use the new ioctl, the old is just for compatibility with an old lvm2 userspace. Clearly you don't have that. -- Erik Hensema