What is logical volume identifier

I'm surprised to see in my desktop this Logical Volume Identifier since the recent update. what is this? - thanks

Hi,
Payroll identifier
The payroll identifier is a sequential number allocated by the SAP System to differentiate between several bonus payments on the same day. The first bonus accounting run has the payroll identifier 0.
Thanks,
Preetham

Similar Messages

  • -69774: Couldn't bring the new Core Storage Logical Volume online.....What Now?

    Hey,
    I'll start from the begining.
    I have a 1TB that was running Mavericks, which I decided to perform Firevault 2.  Anyway my hard drive crashed and now I have Mavericks running on a different 250 gig hard drive and have been trying to decrypt my original 1tb harddrive through terminal.
    So I originally did the "diskutil corestorage unlockVolume UUID -stdinpassphrase thing and it said that it could not mount it but I notice that it was converting.  So after 6 hours the converting stopped and now it says that decyrption is no longer neccessary and that it needs to be reverted.  So I am try to revert it with terminal and it tells me that it is unable to find mount point. So ive been trying to mount the disk and comes up with the above error -69774: Couldn't bring the new Core Storage Logical Volume online.  So does anybody have any suggestions??
    -Thank you

    To anybody that read this and has the same sort of problem:
    I just recovered my stuff using stellar pheonix Mac Data Recovery, even after I coundnt mount it on my other mac machine.   Great software.

  • Mavericks FileVault 2 Issue - Logical Volume Disappeared

    I have a drive out of a damaged, late 2011 MacBook Pro that was FV2 encrypted.  I have the password and key and used them to decrypt the drive to recover data.  This was done from Disk Utility and appeared to be successful until I rebooted.  This was done firewire connected to my 2011 MacBook Pro running Mavericks.  The end result is the drive appearing in RED/inaccessible in disk utility and in the running "diskutil cs list" shows the Logical Volume Group "offline" and the Physical Volume "online".  Oddly the Logical Volume itself is gone.  Below is some output from some diskutil commands:
    /dev/disk1
       #:                       TYPE NAME                    SIZE       IDENTIFIER
       0:      GUID_partition_scheme                        *500.1 GB   disk1
       1:                        EFI EFI                     209.7 MB   disk1s1
       2:          Apple_CoreStorage                         499.2 GB   disk1s2
       3:                 Apple_Boot Boot OS X               650.0 MB   disk1s3
    CoreStorage logical volume groups (1 found)
    |
    +-- Logical Volume Group FD6BEF04-E4EB-48F1-9E4C-5911245D0273
        =========================================================
        Name:         Macintosh HD
        Status:       Offline
        Size:         499248103424 B (499.2 GB)
        Free Space:   498929328128 B (498.9 GB)
        |
        +-< Physical Volume 2BDA1A0F-4404-43F1-B183-D4DB23FBF669
            Index:    0
            Disk:     disk1s2
            Status:   Online
            Size:     499248103424 B (499.2 GB)
    Any ideas or guidance on recovering data from this drive would be greatly appreciated.
    Thank you

    I'm having a similar problem with FireVault and a USB drive. I formatted and encrypted a USB drive using Disk Utility. I set the password and saved it on my home computer's keychain. Now I'm having problems with FV recognizing the password on other computers.
    This morning I mounted the drive and entered the PW with no problem on a computer. I ejected the disk and later remounted it on the same computer. When I was prompted to enter the password, FV paused and grayed out for about 30 sec then rejected the password. If I do the same thing and enter any other password, it is rejected immediately. Not sure what is going on. I've tried it on several computers and it does the same thing with the password.
    I can probably reset the password on my home computer, but worried this will be an ongoing issue. Any advice? Has anyone else encountered this?
    thanks
    Adam

  • Logical Volume Group and Logical Partition not matching up in free space

    I was dual booting Windows 7 and Mountain Lion. Through Disk Utility, I removed the Windows 7 Partition and expanded the HFS+ partition to encompass the entire hard drive. However, the Logical Volume Group does not think that I have that extra free space. The main problem is that I cannot resize my partition. I am wanting to dual boot Ubuntu with this. Any ideas? Any help is appreciated. I will post some screenshots with the details. Furthermore, here are some terminal commands I ran: /dev/disk0
    #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER
    0: GUID_partition_scheme *250.1 GB disk0
    1: EFI 209.7 MB disk0s1
    2: Apple_CoreStorage 249.2 GB disk0s2
    3: Apple_Boot Recovery HD 650.0 MB disk0s3
    /dev/disk1
    #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER
    0: Apple_HFS MAC OS X *248.9 GB disk1 Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity iused ifree %iused Mounted on
    /dev/disk1 243031288 153028624 89746664 64% 38321154 22436666 63% /
    devfs 189 189 0 100% 655 0 100% /dev
    map -hosts 0 0 0 100% 0 0 100% /net
    map auto_home 0 0 0 100% 0 0 100% /home CoreStorage logical volume groups (1 found)
    |
    +-- Logical Volume Group 52A4D825-B134-4C33-AC8B-39A02BA30522
    =========================================================
    Name: MAC OS X
    Size: 249199587328 B (249.2 GB)
    Free Space: 16777216 B (16.8 MB)
    |
    +-< Physical Volume 6D7A0A36-1D86-4A30-8EB5-755D375369D9
    | ----------------------------------------------------
    | Index: 0
    | Disk: disk0s2
    | Status: Online
    | Size: 249199587328 B (249.2 GB)
    |
    +-> Logical Volume Family FDC4568F-4E25-46AB-885A-CBA6287309B6
    Encryption Status: Unlocked
    Encryption Type: None
    Conversion Status: Converting
    Conversion Direction: backward
    Has Encrypted Extents: Yes
    Fully Secure: No
    Passphrase Required: No
    |
    +-> Logical Volume BB2662B7-58F3-401C-B889-F264D79E68B4
    Disk: disk1
    Status: Online
    Size (Total): 248864038912 B (248.9 GB)
    Size (Converted): 130367356928 B (130.4 GB)
    Revertible: Yes (unlock and decryption required)
    LV Name: MAC OS X
    Volume Name: MAC OS X
    Content Hint: Apple_HFS

    Here is another try via the command line:
    dhcp-10-201-238-248:~ KyleWLawrence$ diskutil coreStorage resizeVolume BB2662B7-58F3-401C-B889-F264D79E68B4 210g
    Started CoreStorage operation
    Checking file system
    Performing live verification
    Checking Journaled HFS Plus volume
    Checking extents overflow file
    Checking catalog file
    Incorrect block count for file 2012.12.11.asl
    (It should be 390 instead of 195)
    Checking multi-linked files
    Checking catalog hierarchy
    Checking extended attributes file
    Checking volume bitmap
    Checking volume information
    Invalid volume free block count
    (It should be 21713521 instead of 21713716)
    The volume MAC OS X was found corrupt and needs to be repaired
    Error: -69845: File system verify or repair failed

  • Logical Volume Manager

    I am planning on installing Arch on a laptop soon. I have played with it in VirtualBox on a separate computer, and I am going to hope that it works with my touchpad / wireless mouse.
    I might butcher some jargon in this, but this is how I think LVMs work, and I would like to make sure.
    I am going to make partitions for boot, swap, /, and /home.
    I know boot only needs to be around 100MB, swap is twice the RAM -- and I saw in another thread, / around 10-15GB -- and /home is the rest.
    However, I read about installing on an LVM and it is easy to re-size partitions if needed.
    I only have 1 HD, and I'm mostly doing this because while I do have room to have too much space on /, if I end up only using around 4GB, I would like to have that 11GB on my /home for music or videos.
    So I think that means I would have something like this:
    sda1: boot, around 100MB.
    sda2: LVM, which contains swap, /, and /home.
    pvcreate /dev/sda2 creates the physical volume on the LVM, allowing me to partition it.
    After that, this is where I am confused.
    The Arch Wiki says:
    Create Volume group(s)
    Next step is to create a volume group on this physical volumes. First you need to create a volume group on one of the new partitions and then add to it all other physical volumes you want to have in it:
    # vgcreate VolGroup00 /dev/sda2
    # vgextend VolGroup00 /dev/sdb1
    Also you can use any other name you like instead of VolGroup00 for a volume group when creating it. You can track how your volume group grows with:
    Can I skip this since I have only 1 HD? I guess that /dev/sdb1 is the LVM from the other harddrive?
    I suppose I would have to do vgcreate VolGroup00 /dev/sda2 just to create the volume goup, though. Is this correct?
    After this step, I am pretty much lost. Here's what the wiki says, and how I am interpreting it...
    # lvcreate -L 10G VolGroup00 -n lvolhome
    This will create a logical volume that you can access later with /dev/mapper/Volgroup00-lvolhome or /dev/VolGroup00/lvolhome. Same as with the volume groups you can use any name you want for your logical volume when creating it.
    So later, I would turn this into my home partition during the Arch installation? I would create a lvolswap, and a lvolroot?
    Then, during the installation process, I would format them to ext3, and mount them as /home, /, and then select lvolswap as my swap partition?
    That's about it for now, I guess.
    Last edited by COMMUNISTCHINA (2008-08-15 21:53:41)

    COMMUNISTCHINA wrote:
    Berticus wrote:
    COMMUNISTCHINA wrote:I dunno. I tried using LVM on a virtualbox and I keep getting a kernel panic. I followed the Wiki.
    If I put GRUB on /boot, it doesn't work, but I got it to work if I installed it on the / LV.
    odd, to my knowledge grub can't be on an LVM. why not install grub on MBR?
    I actually figured this out maybe an hour ago.
    I changed my GRUB configuration file, but since it's in a virtualbox, out of habit I type arch root=/dev/sda3 on startup, but I needed to type root=/dev/VG00/lvolroot. I had grub on /boot (not on the LVM), but when I was trying to boot, I told it to go to the wrong place for root. I could probably unmount the .iso for the vbox, but whatever.
    I will read a little more about RAID.
    If I end up figuring out how to do it, would I need my external hooked up to it all the time? I have tote the laptop around, and I wouldn't want the external mucking up the portability.
    I wasn't aware you were on a laptop. In that case, a file server would do you best. But cheapest solution would be just to stick with an external hard drive and not RAID.

  • Logical volume is 'not' in filesystem?

    Hi,
    I have installed arch linux on a PogoPlug B01, and have used lvm to configure two HDDs into a software-raid 0 logical volume, as such:
    lvdisplay
    --- Logical volume ---
    LV Path /dev/VolGroup00/lvolpink
    LV Name lvolpink
    VG Name VolGroup00
    LV UUID pchxXD-c2j4-phRy-v5q5-3Bfd-R1Vy-TsAete
    LV Write Access read/write
    LV Creation host, time ,
    LV Status available
    # open 0
    LV Size 3.64 TiB
    Current LE 953862
    Segments 2
    Allocation inherit
    Read ahead sectors auto
    - currently set to 256
    Block device 254:0
    However, the LV Path does not exist, and the lv doesn't show up in /dev/mapper. The only thing within that directory is a 'control' directory. If I add the LV UUID to /etc/fstab and mount -a, I get the usual 'special device does not exist' error. Does anyone know what may be causing this?
    Thanks,
    Chris

    Hi,
    If possible , could you buy without catalogue just to eliminate a business case.
    If for non catalogue purchase , the error still occurs thne you probably have a customizing error.
    If it works, then we have to focus on the catalog flow side.
    Kind regards,
    Yann

  • Failed to revert logical volume group while merging partition

    Hi All,
    Previously, on my macbook pro, I partitioned my disk for win7 for my dual operation system and only left 120 GB for OS, now I want to delete win7 and return disk space to OS. Currently my OS is yosemite.
    I have already deleted disk space for win7 and merged it back to disk0s3. And, I had a problem to merge disk0s2 with disk0s3.
    I was told it is because I need to revet my Logical Volume Group. I am blocked at reverting it.
    This is my disk info:
    rescomp-14-251133:~ rico$ diskutil list; diskutil  cs list
    /dev/disk0
       #:                       TYPE NAME                    SIZE       IDENTIFIER
       0:      GUID_partition_scheme                        *500.1 GB   disk0
       1:                        EFI EFI                     209.7 MB   disk0s1
       2:          Apple_CoreStorage                         119.3 GB   disk0s2
       3:                  Apple_HFS Recovery HD             380.6 GB   disk0s3
    /dev/disk1
       #:                       TYPE NAME                    SIZE       IDENTIFIER
       0:                  Apple_HFS Macintosh HD           *119.0 GB   disk1
                                     Logical Volume on disk0s2
                                     CC457129-6FE9-41A0-B0D2-F547F21A7555
                                     Unencrypted
    CoreStorage logical volume groups (1 found)
    |
    +-- Logical Volume Group F454017F-C531-43BA-B270-E2058E05BFF4
        =========================================================
        Name:         Macintosh HD
        Status:       Online
        Size:         119290187776 B (119.3 GB)
        Free Space:   4096 B (4.1 KB)
        |
        +-< Physical Volume AC7A2748-0DA1-49D6-B50C-30348838760E
        |   ----------------------------------------------------
        |   Index:    0
        |   Disk:     disk0s2
        |   Status:   Online
        |   Size:     119290187776 B (119.3 GB)
        |
        +-> Logical Volume Family 4B7E6277-69BC-475A-BBB7-7A94D6434D9E
            Encryption Status:       Unlocked
            Encryption Type:         AES-XTS
            Conversion Status:       Converting
            Conversion Direction:    -none-
            Has Encrypted Extents:   Yes
            Fully Secure:            No
            Passphrase Required:     No
            |
            +-> Logical Volume CC457129-6FE9-41A0-B0D2-F547F21A7555
                Disk:                  disk1
                Status:                Online
                Size (Total):          118954639360 B (119.0 GB)
                Conversion Progress:   -none-
                Revertible:            Yes (unlock and decryption required)
                LV Name:               Macintosh HD
                Volume Name:           Macintosh HD
                Content Hint:          Apple_HFS
    when I type unlock:
    rescomp-14-251133:~ rico$ diskutil corestorage unlockVolume CC457129-6FE9-41A0-B0D2-F547F21A7555 -stdinpassphrase
    CC457129-6FE9-41A0-B0D2-F547F21A7555 is already unlocked and is attached as disk1
    It is already unlocked
    then, I tried revert it
    rescomp-14-251133:~ rico$ diskutil coreStorage revert CC457129-6FE9-41A0-B0D2-F547F21A7555
    Passphrase:
    Started CoreStorage operation on disk1 Macintosh HD
    Error: -69750: Unable to modify a FileVault context
    Does anyone how I can revert it, then merge disk0s2 and disk0s3

    Here is another try via the command line:
    dhcp-10-201-238-248:~ KyleWLawrence$ diskutil coreStorage resizeVolume BB2662B7-58F3-401C-B889-F264D79E68B4 210g
    Started CoreStorage operation
    Checking file system
    Performing live verification
    Checking Journaled HFS Plus volume
    Checking extents overflow file
    Checking catalog file
    Incorrect block count for file 2012.12.11.asl
    (It should be 390 instead of 195)
    Checking multi-linked files
    Checking catalog hierarchy
    Checking extended attributes file
    Checking volume bitmap
    Checking volume information
    Invalid volume free block count
    (It should be 21713521 instead of 21713716)
    The volume MAC OS X was found corrupt and needs to be repaired
    Error: -69845: File system verify or repair failed

  • Disk Utility formats Hard Drives as Logical Volume Group

    I just replaced a hard drive which had died in my Mac Pro which has OS X 10.9.5. To format the new 3TB hard drive I went to Disk Utility. I used "Erase" in its fastest form and the drive was formatted with the Type: Logical Volume Group.
    I remember this was a problem a few years ago when I first put hard drives in this computer. I think it was considered a bug in the Disk Utility in OS X 10.8 that it would automatically format drives greater than 2 TB as Logical Volume Group. The solution for me was to restart the computer with my OS X 10.6 disk and use the Disk Utility in that to reformat the drive. I never really understood why Logical Volume Group was a problem but I just obeyed what the wise ones of the Internet had to say.
    So, now I am wondering if I should reformat my new Hard Drive as GUID using my OS X 10.6 optical disk again? If it was a bug in the Disk Utility of OS X 10.8 then why is it not fixed in the Disk Utility of OS X 10.9? Is there an actual problem with having disks format formatted as Logical Volume Group? Is this now just Apple's way of doing things?
    Thank you.

    keg55 wrote:
    You could do your reformat using your 10.6 DVD. That's a decision that's up to you.
    Not every bug in a previous OS gets fixed in a new OS.
    I don't believe CoreStorage (Logical Volume Group) causes any sort of issues. Whenever one encrypts their Macintosh HD, the format is converted to CoreStorage. Fusion Drives are using CoreStorage and now Yosemite converts portables (laptops) to CoreStorage during the install process. As far as Yosemite is concerned, Apple seems to have gone the route of CoreStorage for portables. Even during the Setup on a portable, FileVault is offered with the default of YES being checked. So, if a customer isn't paying attention and continues with the install, they could encrypt their drive without knowing to uncheck the default checkbox.
    Thank you for your reply.
    I have decided to reformat my new hard drive using my 10.6 disk. I like being able to split it up into more than one volume if need be.
    I understand that not every bug in a previous OS gets fixed, but this strikes me as being really a very large bug, so I think it would be good if Apple addressed it.
    It is useful to know about Yosemite's behaviour. When I upgrade to Yosemite I will be a bit more prepared. In fact my MacBook Pro has FileVault on with Mavericks so Yosemite won't change anything there.

  • 3TB Fusion & logical volume group

    I'm in the process of fully reinstalling Mavericks - erasing my internal drive and paring my system way down, to resolve some long lingering issues.
    Disk Utility shows the recovery partition as separate (I've booted from it) - but when I went to erase the default Macintosh HD partition I was unable to repartition it as a single partition - it was grayed out - and the TYPE was/is logical volume group - where I was expecting to see GUID.   All I could do at that point was ERASE... which I did - so it remains a logical volume group -
    I'm unsure if, because of the Fusion drive, this is how they come from Apple - or the previous owner messed with it and trouble could loom wth this setup.
    It's a Late 2012 iMac with stock 3TB Fusion Drive.
    I'm in the process of reinstalling Mavericks from the Recovery (Internet recovery I'm guessing since it's taking 2 hours).  I'm not near an Apple Store unfortunately though do have extended 3 year warranty.
    Is it OK to leave the main Macintosh HD as "logical volume group"?????

    Yes. That's the technical name for what Apple marketing refers to as a "Fusion Drive." Don't change it.

  • I need to sudo cs delete an encrypted hard drive but get an error "Not a valid CoreStorage Logical Volume Group UUID"

    Ok so I encrypted an internal HDD with DOE compliant encryption, and forgot the password. I am not using a typical mac bootloader so apple C when its booting will not work to delete it before its mounted. I have to do it through the terminal. The drive I want to delete is HDD2. Here is the screen capture of running diskutil cs list in terminal.
    Then I disconnected everything to avoid problems, leaving my encrypted HDD only, copied the UUID, it's in this format:
    diskutil cs delete XXXXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX
    But I am unsure which group or physical UUID I need to use, there are three associated with HDD2, logical volume group, physical volume and logical volume family. I thought before pressing enter I better ask first ... as I tried it on the physical volume first and I got the error in the title so dont want to start guessing what do to.
    Thanks                       

    Is it not good form for members to advise about using the console? Surely some members are knowledgeable enough to tell me the answer to this .... I know it's easy to bork your system up totally with the console but I'm desparate, my main drive has 1GB free!

  • Logical Volume Group.

    My 1TB SSD main drive on my MBP Retina volume has changed to Logical Volume Group and the Partition is named Logical Partition.  Now it works fine but was wondering why it has changed from Mac OS Extended (Journaled).  If I want to partition the drive, it is grayed out with no options.  I'm not pleased that I can't control my own drive.  Any answers?

    FileVault is not activated, although it was at one point.  I deleted the partition and...
    I believe that may have caused the problem when I attempted to load the operating system on a new partition from the drive.  I deleted it and thought I reformatted it to Mac OS Extended, but I had major issues because it was locked at one point.  Just recently, I restored to a TM backup which should have formatted the drive correctly but this is what I ended up with.  Like I said, the option is grayed out now.
    Gary

  • 10g ASM on Logical Volumes vs. Raw devices and SAN Virtualization

    We are looking at setting up our standards for Oracle 10g non-rac systems. We are looking at the value of Oracle ASM in our environment.
    As per the official Oracle documentation, raw devices are preferred to using Logical Volumes when using ASM.
    From here: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b15658/appa_aix.htm#sthr
    ef723
    "Note: Do not add logical volumes to Automatic Storage Management disk groups. Automatic Storage Management works best when you add raw disk devices to disk groups. If you are using Automatic Storage Management, then do not use LVM for striping. Automatic Storage Management implements striping and mirroring."
    Also, as per Metalink note 452924.1:
    "10) Avoid using a Logical Volume Manager (LVM) because an LVM would be redundant."
    The issue is: if we use raw disk devices presented to ASM, the disks don't show up as used in the unix/AIX system tools (i.e. smit, lspv, etc.). Hence, when looking for raw devices on the system to add to filesystems/volume groups/etc., it's highly possible that a UNIX admin will grab a raw device that is already in use by Oracle ASM.
    Additionally, we are using a an IBM DS8300 SAN with IBM SAN Volume Controller (SVC) in front of it. Hence, we already have storage virtualization and I/O balancing at the SAN/hardware level.
    I'm looking for a little clarification to the following questions, as my understanding of their responses seem to confict:
    QUESTION #1: Can anyone clarify/provide additional detail as to why Logical volumes are not preferred when using Oracle ASM? Does the argument still hold in a SAN Virtualized environment?
    QUESTION #2: Does virtualization at the software level (ASM) make sense in our environment? As we already have I/O balancing provided at the hardware level via our SVC, what do we gain by adding yet another level of I/O balancing at the ASM level? Or as in the
    arguments the Oracle documentation makes against using Lvm, is this an unnecessary redundant striping (double-striped or in our case triple-striped/plaid)?
    QUESTION #3: So does SAN Virtualization conflict or compliment the virtualization provided by ASM?

    After more research/discussions/SR's, I've come to the following conclusion.
    Basically, in an intelligent storage environment (i.e. SVC), you're not getting a 100% bang for the buck by using ASM. Which is the cat's meow in a commodity hardware/unintelligent storage environment.
    Using ASM in a SVC environment potentially wastes CPU cycles having ASM balance i/o that is already balanced on the backend (sure if you shuffle a deck of cards that are already shuffled you're not doing any harm, but if they're already shuffled - then why are you shuffling them again??).
    That being said, there may still be some value for using ASM from the standpoint of storage management for multiple instances on a server. For example, one could better minimize space wastage by being able to share a "pool" of storage between mulitiple instances, rather than having to manage space on an instance-by-instance (or filesystem by filesystem) level.
    Also, in the case of having a unfriendly OS where one is unable to dynamically grow a filesystem (i.e. database outage required), there would be a definite benefit provided by ASM in being able to dynamically allocate disks to the "pool". Of course, with most higher-end end systems, dynamic filesystem growth is pretty much a given.
    In the case of RAC, regardless of the backend, ASM with raw is a no-brainer.
    In the case of a standalone instance, it's a judgement call. My vote in the case of intelligent storage where one could dynamically grow filesystems, would be to keep ASM out of the picture.
    Your vote may be different....just make sure you're putting in a solution to a problem and not a solution that's looking for a problem(s).
    And there's the whole culture of IT thing as well (i.e. do your storage guys know what you're doing and vice versa).....which can destroy any technological solution, regardless of how great it is.

  • Unix layout question  single vs. multiple logical volumes

    Hello friends,
    I have a question which I have seen various points of view. I'm hoping you might be able to give me a better insight so I can either confirm my own sanity, or accept a new paradigm shift in laying out the file system for best performance.
    Here are the givens:
    Unix systems (AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, and/or Linux).
    Hardware RAID system on large SAN (in this case, RAID-05 striped over more than 100 physical disks).
    (We are using AIX 6.1 with CIO turned on for the database files).
    Each Physical Volume is literally striped over at least physical 100 disks (spindles).
    Each Logical Volume is also striped over at least 100 spindles (all the same spindles for each lvol).
    Oracle software binaries are on their own separate physical volume.
    Oracle backups, exports, flash-back-query, etc., are on their own separate physical volume.
    Oracle database files, including all tablespaces, redo logs, undo ts, temp ts, and control files are in their own separate physical volume (that is made up of logical volumes that are each striped over at least 100 physical disks (spindles).
    The question is if it makes any sense (and WHY) to break up the physical volume that is used for the Oracle database files themselves, into multiple logical volumes? At what point does it make sense to create individual logical volumes for each datafile, or type, or put them all in a single logical volume?
    Does this do anything at all for performance? If the volumes are logical, then what difference would it to put them into individual logical volumes that are striped across the same one-hundred (+) disks?
    Basically ALL database files are in a single physical volume (LUN), but does it help (and WHY) to break up the physical volume into several logical volumes for placing each of the individual data files (e.g., separating system ts, from sysaux, from temp, from undo, from data, from indexes, etc.) if the physical volume is created on a RAID-5 (or RAID-10) disk array on a SAN that literally spans across hundreds of high-speed disks?
    If this does makes sense, why?
    From a physical standpoint, there are only 4 hardware paths for each LUN, so what difference does it make to create multiple 'logical' volumes for each datafile, or for separating types of data files?
    From an I/O standpoint, the multi-threading of the operating system should only be able to use the number of pathways that are capable based on the various operating system options (e.g., multicore CPUs using SMT (simultaneous multipath threading). But I believe they are still based on physical paths, not based on logical volumes.
    I look forward to hearing back from you.
    Thanks.
    ji li

    Thanks for your reply damorgan.
    We have dual HBAs in our servers as standard equipment, along with dual controllers.
    I totally agree with the idea of getting rid of RAID-5, but that is not my choice.
    We have a very large (massive) data center and the decision to use RAID-5 was at the discretion of our unix team some time ago. Their idea is one-size-fits-all. When I questioned it, I was balked at. After all, what do I know? I've only been a sys admin for 10 years (but on HP-UX and Solaris, not on AIX), and I've only been an Oracle DBA for nearly 20 years.
    For whatever it is worth, they also mirror their RAID-5, so in essence, it is a RAID 5-1-0 (RAID-50).
    Anyway, as for the hardware paths, from my understanding, there are only 4 physical hardware paths going from the servers to the switches, to the SAN and back. Their claim (the unix team's) is that by using multiple logical volumes within a single physical volume, that it increases the number of 'threads' to pull data from the stripe. This is the part I don't understand and may be specific to AIX.
    So if each logical volume is a stripe within a physical volume, and each physical volume is striped across more than one hundred disks, I still don't understand how multiple logical volumes can increase I/O through-put. From my understanding, if we only have four paths, and there are 100+ spindles, even if it did increase I/O somehow by the way AIX uses multipathing (SMT) with its CPUs, how can it have any affect on the I/O. And if it did, it would still have to be negligible.
    Two years ago, I've personally set up three LUNs on a pair of Sun V480s (RAC'd) connected to a Sun Storage 3510 SAN. One LUN for Oracle binaries, one for database datafiles, and one for backups and archivelogs), and then put all my datafiles in a single logical volume on one LUN, and had fantastic performance for a very intense database that literally had 12,000 to 16,000 simultaneous active* connections using Webshere connection pools. While that was a Sun system, and now I'm dealing with an AIX P6 570 system, I can't imagine the concepts being that much different, especially when the servers are basically comparable.
    Any comments or feedback appreciated.
    ji li
    Edited by: ji li on Jan 28, 2013 7:51 AM

  • Can't delete a logical volume group created from a blank disk image

    Hi all,
    I'm a recent convert from Windows, so do bear with me while I grapple with all the new terminology.
    Basically, here's the problem: I've been trying to create an encrypted drive and have been at it for a few hours now. I ended up with two 'logical volume groups' created from blank disk images, neither of which are password-protected, and one of which I quite stupidly named "hidden folder" and can't rename now. Anyways, I decided to throw it all away and start right from scratch, but now disk utility won't let me delete these two logical volume groups despite me dismounting both devices, trying to trash the containing folder, etc. Some searching about online has gotten me into the belief that there should be an 'erase' tab in the disk utility window which is not showing up when I click on those drives (however, the erase tab does appear when I click on the indented partitions on each drive). Here's a screenshot to give you guys an idea:
    -Here's the disk utility window. The two drives I'm trying to get rid of are "Hidden Folder" and "HD2"
    -Here's what I suppose would be called the 'containing folder' in which both drives reside
    -And finally my setup, just in case it's relevant
    Oh and btw this would be my first post here! How exciting
    Thanks in advance,
    Arthur

    nidra wrote:
    When I right click on it these are the choices: Open; Move to Trash; Get Info; Compress...; Burn ... to disc; Duplicate; Make Alias; Copy ...; Clean Up Selection; Show view options; Label; Folder Actions Setup.
    That is as it should be. If you select "Move to Trash" does it move the folders to the trash? If so, do the following from my previous post:
    tjk wrote:
    1. Open Terminal (in Applications, Utilities).
    2. Copy and paste the following command into the Terminal window (or type it exactly as follows):
    sudo rm -rf ~/.Trash/*
    3. Press Return.
    4. Type in your password when asked (note: you will not see anything being entered as you type your password).
    5. Hit Return.
    6. Wait until the process finishes/the Terminal prompt returns.
    7. Quit Terminal.
    I wonder if I need to do some changes to the rights about doing this action "move to trash"?
    Run Repair Permissions in Disk Utility.
    this is making me very uncomfortable, I know myself to solve any problems I tackle/___sbsstatic___/migration-images/migration-img-not-avail.png Something so simple as this is making me crazy
    I don't know if it would make me any crazier than I am, but I sure wouldn't want a stray folder just hanging around on my desktop either.

  • SE3511 - recovering logical volumes

    Hi ,
    I have a SE3511 array with one controller array and a JBOD both are fully populated with 400GB disks. There is one each logical drives(RAID5) configured on both controller array and JBOD. Each logical drives were divided into two logical volumes of equal size. SO I had 4 logical volumes total. After doing a physical move of the array to different location, I had some problems witht the array. When I checked the configuration, i could see all the logical volumes are disappeared, but still the logical drives are there. Unfortunately I didn't take a configuration backp of the styorage. But I know the size of the logical volumes.
    Can any body help how to recover the lost logical volumes or create the logical volumes without losing data.
    Thanks
    Babu

    Found the following:-
    http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14239/manage_ls.htm#sthref1308
    Oracle® Data Guard Concepts and Administration
    10g Release 2 (10.2)
    Part Number B14239-04
    Managing A Logical Standby Database -- 9.5.4
    Indicates that the Logical Standby can recover through an OPEN RESETLOGS if its running in flashback database mode.
    Not sure what the impact of this is on non-guarded components - could be that if it flashes the logical back too that it loses all the non-guarded components

Maybe you are looking for