vgcreate says "PV is to small to to be configured"

[Maxim Yakimenko]

Collegues, hi

I have very strange case - LUN presented from XP to 11.31 server, it is 100000Mb size, diskinfo shows it well, I try to create VG version 2.0 and vgcreate complains "Error: One of the physical volumes is too small to be configured as part of the volume group.". Command I execute is "vgcreate -V 2.0 -s 1m -S 100g vg02 /dev/disk/disk2". And creation of VG version 1.0 on this PV succeds without any problem. vgcreate -V 2.0 -E shows that PE size I choose is correct for VG of that size, all is in place as it should be, but VG creation fails. Any ideas?

[Duncan Edmonstone]

Maxim,

Only a minor nit, but the man page for vgcreate suggests that pe_size is always specified in megabytes and I guess that implies that it doesn't need the m suffix on the size (all the examples don't show that)

So does this work:

vgcreate -V 2.0 -s 1 -S 100g vg02 /dev/disk/disk2

Incidentally why do you wnat such a small extent size on such a big disk?

HTH

Duncan

[Maxim Yakimenko]

Well, I tried to not to specify pe_size suffix , it does not change the case. Also I tried to specify large pe_size - even 256 megbytes. Nothing helped.

[Turgay Cavdar]

Can you post the output of the commands:
# vgcreate -V 2.0 -s 256 -S 100g vg02 /dev/disk/disk2

# diskinfo /dev/rdisk/disk2

[Maxim Yakimenko]

##########################################3
vgcreate: Volume group "/dev/vg02" could not be created:
Error: One of the physical volumes is too small to be configured
as part of the volume group.



###################################
SCSI describe of /dev/rdisk/disk2:
vendor: HP
product id: OPEN-V
type: direct access
size: 102400320 Kbytes
bytes per sector: 512

[Michal Kapalka (mikap)]

hi,

size: 102400320 Kbytes

100GB = 1048576000 Kbytes so your PV is smaller as required for your size just try to create

99GB and if its working you need to increase the PV size from the storage or using only 99GB

mikap

[Maxim Yakimenko]

Michal, -S parameter is not size of VG, it shows how big VG can grow - so size of PV may be less than. Only limitation as I understand is size of PV should be enough to cary VG metadata. I tried to create smaller VG -S 50g and even 10m :)

[Maxim Yakimenko]

#vgcreate -V 2.0 -s 256 -S 1024m vg02 /dev/disk/disk2

vgcreate: Volume group "/dev/vg02" could not be created:
Error: One of the physical volumes is too small to be configured
as part of the volume group.

:) mistics

[Michal Kapalka (mikap)]

hi,

sorry my misteake.

mikap

[Turgay Cavdar]

It is really very strange problem...
Are there any "virtual provisioning" ipmlementation on the storage? Just an idea, we may see from the OS the disk is 100GB but actually it may be very small on the storage.

[Maxim Yakimenko]

Yes, very strange....
No, it is truthful and honest 100GB LDEV, I created VG v1.0, LV on it and FS of ~100 gb - all is ok

[Duncan Edmonstone]

When you run the vgcreate, is the group file already present, or are you letting vgcreate create it? If it is present can you post "ll /dev/vg02/group"

HTH

Duncan

[Maxim Yakimenko]

Duncan, I tried both methods - I created VG DSF myself and len it vgcreate to it itself. Of course I know that "group" for v2.0 should have major 128

[Turgay Cavdar]

Have you tried to recreate the device files?

# rmsf /dev/disk/disk2 /dev/rdisk/disk2 /dev/dsk/cxtydz /dev/rdsk/cxtydz

- insf

-pvcreate -f

-vgcreate

[Duncan Edmonstone]

Hmmm don't really understand this then...

clutching at straws here, have you tried creating the VG with a much larger size? The output of "vgcreate -V 2.0 -E -s 1" on my system suggests I can create a VG much larger than 100g with with an extent size of 1m...

so how about

vgcreate -V 2.0 -s 1 -S 1t vg02 /dev/disk/disk2

HTH

Duncan

[Maxim Yakimenko]

"-S 1t" fails too. I've already used rmsf, but I deleted only agile DSF, legacy I did not touch. So, how to resolve pathes which I can see in output of scsimgr into legacy DSFs?

[Turgay Cavdar]

# ioscan -m dsf

[Maxim Yakimenko]

Solved. As I managed to investigate this system was incorrectly installed or incorrectly patched - after fresh reinstall (using March 2010) problem has gone.

Thanks to you, collegues