i *think* i'm done the gi version of disk.lvm. LVM is such a mess.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -31,15 +31,15 @@
|
||||
</disk>
|
||||
</blockDevices>
|
||||
<!-- "Special" devices are processed *in the order they are specified*. This is important if you wish to
|
||||
e.g. layer LUKS on top of LVM - you would specify <lvm> before <luks> and reference the
|
||||
<luksDev id="SOMETHING" ... > as <lvmLogical source="SOMETHING" ... />.
|
||||
e.g. layer LVM on top of LUKS - you would specify <lvm> before <luks> and reference the
|
||||
<luksDev id="SOMETHING" ... > as <pv source="SOMETHING" ... />.
|
||||
Of course, a limitation of this is you cannot e.g. first assemble a LUKS volume, then an LVM
|
||||
group, and then another LUKS volume - so plan accordingly and/or perform this in a <post> script. -->
|
||||
group, and then another LUKS volume - so plan accordingly and/or perform that in
|
||||
a <post> script instead. -->
|
||||
<luks>
|
||||
<luksDev id="luks_secrets" name="secrets" source="secrets1">
|
||||
<!-- You can assign multiple secrets (or "keys") to a LUKS volume. -->
|
||||
<secrets
|
||||
>
|
||||
<secrets>
|
||||
<!-- A simple passphrase. -->
|
||||
<passphrase>secrets1</passphrase>
|
||||
</secrets>
|
||||
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@
|
||||
<logicalVolumes>
|
||||
<!-- Default is to add all available PVs in PhysicalVolumes... -->
|
||||
<lv id="lv1" name="logical1" size="80%"/>
|
||||
<!-- But you can also explicitly designate them. -->
|
||||
<!-- But you can also explicitly designate them. They have to still be in the same volumeGroup though. -->
|
||||
<lv id="lv2" name="logical2" size="20%">
|
||||
<pvMember source="pv1"/>
|
||||
</lv>
|
||||
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@
|
||||
<fs id="luks" source="luks_secrets" type="ext4">
|
||||
<opt name="-L">seekrit</opt>
|
||||
</fs>
|
||||
<fs id="swap" source="swap" type="swap"/>
|
||||
<fs id="swap" source="swap" type="swap"/>
|
||||
<fs id="vg1-lv1" source="lv1" type="ext4"/>
|
||||
<fs id="mdraid" source="mdadm1" type="ext4"/>
|
||||
</fileSystems>
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user