Re: [linux-lvm] bug? shrink lv by specifying pv extent to be removed does not behave as expected

From: Roberto Fastec <roberto.fastec@gmail.com>
To: LVM general discussion and development <linux-lvm@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] bug? shrink lv by specifying pv extent to be removed does not behave as expected
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:28:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <97bbb6e5-8d52-4ba2-b2ac-b6f60b8da11c@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3366925a-d67b-f43d-bf3a-91d8bf9a327b@web.de>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2874 bytes --]

P.S. needless to be said, that they eventually can reassemble damaged LVM , until LVM's metadata tables are still good enough

Il giorno 12 apr 2023, 08:39, alle ore 08:39, Roland <devzero@web.de> ha scritto:
> >Controllers remap blocks all on their own and the so-called geometry
>is entirely fictitious anyway
>
>so tell me then, why i have a shelf full with dead disks where half of
>them are out of business for nothing but a couple of bad sectors ?
>
>i don't see the point that hardware capable storing terabytes of data
>is
>being put to trash, because of some <0.01% of it's sectors is defective
>for this or for that reason.  it's that "the vendor tells it's dead now
>- so please better buy a new one" paradigm, which seems to rule
>everewhere today.
>
>i dislike this attitude.
>
>if you had a self healing diving suit which quits healing itself after
>the 5th small hole, would you throw that away after the 5th hole - or
>would you put a patch on that? same goes for bicycle inner tubing.
>there
>were times, where you put patches on that because new ones where
>expensive. nowadays, everbody puts them to trash and buys a new one.
>
>so, if some drive controller isn't able to fix your 20 broken sectors -
>i'd like to fix it myself. and i'd like to try the lvm apporach,
>because
>i think it's a sensible way of putting some abstraction layer between
>your filesystem and your rotating disks.
>
>and even if it's dumb to do or if it's something which will not succeed
>, it's at least worth a try to show if it works or show why it can't
>work - and if it doesn't work - there is at least something to learn
>about lvm or dead disks.
>
>roland
>
>
>Am 09.04.23 um 22:18 schrieb matthew patton:
>> > my plan is to scan a disk for usable sectors and map the logical
>volume
>> > around the broken sectors.
>>
>> 1977 called, they'd like their non-self-correcting HD controller
>> implementations back.
>>
>> From a real-world perspective there is ZERO (more like negative)
>> utility to this exercise. Controllers remap blocks all on their own
>> and the so-called geometry is entirely fictitious anyway. From a
>> script/program "because I want to" perspective you could leave LVM
>> entirely out of it and just use a file with arbitrary offsets
>> scribbled with a "bad" signature.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-lvm mailing list
>> linux-lvm@redhat.com
>> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
>> read the LVM HOW-TO athttp://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>linux-lvm mailing list
>linux-lvm@redhat.com
>https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
>read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5754 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 202 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/