From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-114384-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1Ory60-0005Up-Ds
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 19:08:12 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7BA83E05F1;
	Sat,  4 Sep 2010 19:07:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-iw0-f181.google.com (mail-iw0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64053E05F1
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat,  4 Sep 2010 19:07:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so3383899iwn.40
        for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 12:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to
         :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=pNKeRR2YOQ3NJN500Qeo0SshBESNtfibXubXSgTsvhY=;
        b=Oif+TEtWe34804dEQW6vUlpX4ozx4+paI5PWVrXl+PiB41mlkCEi4GBfDJl9icMRzt
         xLzJHi/PDBrxG0Jm8Y32s8pj3SxmWh2xWJboA7Dw1oV8Haq1RQ6GtUv0HWMmNFICmCq6
         KoXOTEPApEqa/SsVP/Ttfwv1RT8DSDYhbVkcI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=htBcmZ/9nRnHFjD6EMcBJl+onIt0pxjZm/HG/9vtPZ/lGu55oJer9oTpR5jnm2lF11
         IyVy/3/FrxPWuF8lQQSM5xTxA7qrmvz5FXabIMVxTmfYLXGZCWpXjq1MfwS5ojzUtZE8
         Vj0Di22AnQNyqvqpoeilWDslVR0qGnYmZsws0=
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.187.194 with SMTP id cx2mr2740044ibb.165.1283627262840;
 Sat, 04 Sep 2010 12:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.37.138 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Sep 2010 12:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1283609461.568528@rumba>
References: <1283609461.568528@rumba>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 21:07:42 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=z6RZ7umnm3jbCUPBVbehPqzT4xsd=L_hfaZSf@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Lilo vs. LVM
From: Al <oss.elmar@googlemail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: e0c7f9f0-8a9f-482c-b379-5da989d8581e
X-Archives-Hash: c7dc9b59f8221d8bba11f5b10a2c6b4d

2010/9/4 Konstantinos Agouros <elwood@agouros.de>:
> Hi,
>
> I have a VM with a gentoo guest. For testing I set it up with an LVM
> Volume Group that consisted of only one disk. Now I added a 2nd resized
> the FS but lilo stopped working. When I call it I get:
>
> # lilo
> device-mapper: table ioctl failed: No such device or address
> Fatal: device-mapper: dm_task_run(DM_DEVICE_TABLE) failed
>
> /boot is also on the LVM volume.
>
> Is maybe grub the answer to my problem?

A don't think so. Grub has more features comparing lilo. More features
== more complex. Dealing with VM, LVM and lilo is already one level of
complexity to much if you ask.

Al