> On 31 Jan 2022, at 23:36, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:57:45PM +, Gareth Evans wrote:
>>> On 31 Jan 2022, at 17:37, Andy Smith wrote:
>> Hi Andy, I appreciate the data doesn't go anywhere, but...
>>
then I delete P2 and then add a
new partition wh
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:57:45PM +, Gareth Evans wrote:
> > On 31 Jan 2022, at 17:37, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi Andy, I appreciate the data doesn't go anywhere, but...
>
> >> then I delete P2 and then add a
> >> new partition which defaults to 2.
>
> doesn't that at least result in th
> On 31 Jan 2022, at 18:03, Gareth Evans wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 31 Jan 2022, at 17:58, Gareth Evans wrote:
>>
>>
>>
On 31 Jan 2022, at 17:37, Andy Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:27:56PM +, Gareth Evans wrote:
>>> On 31 Jan 2022, at 14:41, Ma
> On 31 Jan 2022, at 17:58, Gareth Evans wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 31 Jan 2022, at 17:37, Andy Smith wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:27:56PM +, Gareth Evans wrote:
>> On 31 Jan 2022, at 14:41, Martin McCormick
>> wrote:
>
> #I should be telling resiz
> On 31 Jan 2022, at 17:37, Andy Smith wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:27:56PM +, Gareth Evans wrote:
On 31 Jan 2022, at 14:41, Martin McCormick wrote:
>>>
>>> #I should be telling resize2fs to squeeze everything in to a 7GB
>>> #partition.
>>> sudo resize2fs /de
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:27:56PM +, Gareth Evans wrote:
> > On 31 Jan 2022, at 14:41, Martin McCormick wrote:
> >
> > #I should be telling resize2fs to squeeze everything in to a 7GB
> > #partition.
> > sudo resize2fs /dev/loop0p2 +7G
> > [...]
> > then I delete P2 and then add a
> On 31 Jan 2022, at 14:41, Martin McCormick wrote:
>
> #I should be telling resize2fs to squeeze everything in to a 7GB
> #partition.
> sudo resize2fs /dev/loop0p2 +7G
> [...]
> then I delete P2 and then add a
> new partition which defaults to 2.
This seems to replace the partition contain
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 08:40:49AM -0600, Martin McCormick wrote:
> #I should be telling resize2fs to squeeze everything in to a 7GB
> #partition.
>sudo resize2fs /dev/loop0p2 +7G
[…]
> fdisk prompts for the first sector with a default of 2048 but I
> type in 137215. The last sector
On 2009-07-23 16:22, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-07-20 21:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-07-08 20:23, Miles Bader wrote:
[snip]
Hmm, my / is 290MB, though /tmp, /var, /boot, and /usr are all separate
pa
On 2009-07-22 10:02, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
In <4a665bf5.2090...@cox.net>, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-07-21 11:51, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
In <4a655762.6020...@cox.net>, Ron Johnson wrote:
Then still I don't see the real gain to separating /usr and
/usr/local into their own partit
On Mon, Jul 20 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-07-20 21:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 19 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-07-08 20:23, Miles Bader wrote:
>>> [snip]
Hmm, my / is 290MB, though /tmp, /var, /boot, and /usr are all separate
partitions.
>>> *Why*? IOW,
In <4a665bf5.2090...@cox.net>, Ron Johnson wrote:
>On 2009-07-21 11:51, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> In <4a655762.6020...@cox.net>, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> Then still I don't see the real gain to separating /usr and
>>> /usr/local into their own partitions.
>>
>> /usr is managed by the distribut
On 2009-07-21 11:51, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
In <4a655762.6020...@cox.net>, Ron Johnson wrote:
Then still I don't see the real gain to separating /usr and
/usr/local into their own partitions.
/usr is managed by the distribution I have installed currently.
/usr/local is managed by me, an
In <4a655762.6020...@cox.net>, Ron Johnson wrote:
>Then still I don't see the real gain to separating /usr and
>/usr/local into their own partitions.
/usr is managed by the distribution I have installed currently.
/usr/local is managed by me, and moves with me when I change distributions,
like /h
On 2009-07-21 05:45, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Then still I don't see the real gain to separating /usr and /usr/local
into their own partitions.
Just my humble guesswork: the same reasons as to why have /home on a
separate partition. /usr/local is the 'home' of custom softw
Ron Johnson wrote:
> Then still I don't see the real gain to separating /usr and /usr/local
> into their own partitions.
Just my humble guesswork: the same reasons as to why have /home on a
separate partition. /usr/local is the 'home' of custom software. ;-)
Johannes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 20:02 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-07-08 20:23, Miles Bader wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >Hmm, my / is 290MB, though /tmp, /var, /boot, and /usr are all separate
> >partitions.
>
> *Why*? IOW, what benefit do you derive in 2009 (as opposed to 1989,
> when disks weren't alw
On 2009-07-21 00:21, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2009-07-21 05:50 +0200, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-07-20 21:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
/dev/sda1 /boot ext3
noatime,rw,defaults,noauto 0 2
noauto?
There is no need to mount /boot unless
On 2009-07-21 05:50 +0200, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-07-20 21:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> /dev/sda1/boot ext3
>> noatime,rw,defaults,noauto 0 2
>
> noauto?
There is no need to mount /boot unless you install new kernels or update
you
On 2009-07-20 21:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-07-08 20:23, Miles Bader wrote:
[snip]
Hmm, my / is 290MB, though /tmp, /var, /boot, and /usr are all separate
partitions.
*Why*? IOW, what benefit do you derive in 2009 (as opposed to 1989,
when dis
On Sun, Jul 19 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-07-08 20:23, Miles Bader wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Hmm, my / is 290MB, though /tmp, /var, /boot, and /usr are all separate
>> partitions.
>
> *Why*? IOW, what benefit do you derive in 2009 (as opposed to 1989,
> when disks weren't always large enough
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Mark Allums wrote:
> Protection by isolaton, partly.
I do the same thing.
Maybe it's just superstition, but it's fairly rare to lose a whole
hard drive, but fairly common to corrupt a filesystem.
Such corruption usually happens when you (intentionally) write to a
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-07-08 20:23, Miles Bader wrote:
[snip]
Hmm, my / is 290MB, though /tmp, /var, /boot, and /usr are all separate
partitions.
*Why*? IOW, what benefit do you derive in 2009 (as opposed to 1989,
when disks weren't always large enough to hold it all) from splitting
th
On 2009-07-08 20:23, Miles Bader wrote:
[snip]
Hmm, my / is 290MB, though /tmp, /var, /boot, and /usr are all separate
partitions.
*Why*? IOW, what benefit do you derive in 2009 (as opposed to 1989,
when disks weren't always large enough to hold it all) from
splitting these out?
--
Scooty
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." writes:
>>>As a side note, it took quite a few steps to setup LVM + a larger /.
>>>By default / is only ~6G, who in the world can live with that when my
>>>/home is 650G ? Anyway system seems to be fine now.
>>
>> My des
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." writes:
>>As a side note, it took quite a few steps to setup LVM + a larger /.
>>By default / is only ~6G, who in the world can live with that when my
>>/home is 650G ? Anyway system seems to be fine now.
>
> My desktop has a / that is 1GiB, but that's far too large, becau
In Wednesday 08 July 2009, you wrote:
>As a side note, it took quite a few steps to setup LVM + a larger /.
>By default / is only ~6G, who in the world can live with that when my
>/home is 650G ? Anyway system seems to be fine now.
My desktop has a / that is 1GiB, but that's far too large, because
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith
Jr. wrote:
> In , Mathieu
> Malaterre wrote:
>># df -h
>> According to df, /home is 670G and / is 5.6G, so I decide to remove
>>20G from one to move it to the other.
>>
>># resize2fs /dev/mapper/gotlib-home 650G
>>... do some e2fsck dance
>># lvre
In , Mathieu
Malaterre wrote:
># df -h
> According to df, /home is 670G and / is 5.6G, so I decide to remove
>20G from one to move it to the other.
>
># resize2fs /dev/mapper/gotlib-home 650G
>... do some e2fsck dance
># lvreduce -L-20G /dev/mapper/gotlib-home
>
># e2fsck -f /dev/mapper/gotlib-ho
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:26:54PM -0500, Rick Pasotto wrote:
> I would like to increase the size of my /var partition. It is a logical
> volume so I made it bigger with lvexpand. I then ran resize2fs, which
> according to the man page works on mounted file systems with kernels
> after 2.6 and my k
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:45:30PM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > resize2fs: Filesystem does not support online resizing
>
> AIUI this means you didn't create the filesystem with "-O resize_inode",
> so you can't do online resizing. Unfortunately there's no way to change
> this after the file
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:26:54PM -0500, Rick Pasotto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> I would like to increase the size of my /var partition. It is a logical
> volume so I made it bigger with lvexpand. I then ran resize2fs, which
> according to the man page works on mounted file systems w
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 22:26, Rick Pasotto wrote:
> I would like to increase the size of my /var partition. It is a logical
> volume so I made it bigger with lvexpand. I then ran resize2fs, which
> according to the man page works on mounted file systems with kernels
> after 2.6 and my kernel
On Thursday 01 February 2007 10:57, Pim Bliek wrote:
> Hmm, so that means I am stuck... The system was installed from a
> (modified for 3Ware card + LVM support) Sarge install CD which means
> 1.37 for e2fsprogs (I checked). So this means the -O option wasn't
> used...
>
> Damn.. this will mean I
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 11:54:14AM +0100, Pim Bliek wrote:
> # mke2fs /dev/vg00/backups -O resize_inode
> # tune2fs -j /dev/vg00/backups
> # lvextend -L 65G /dev/vg00/backups
> # resize2fs /dev/vg00/backups 65G
> resize2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006)
> Resizing the filesystem on /dev/vg00/backups to 170
# mke2fs /dev/vg00/backups -O resize_inode
# tune2fs -j /dev/vg00/backups
# lvextend -L 65G /dev/vg00/backups
# resize2fs /dev/vg00/backups 65G
resize2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006)
Resizing the filesystem on /dev/vg00/backups to 17039360 (4k) blocks.
The filesystem on /dev/vg00/backups is now 17039360
# ext2online -v /dev/vg00/backup 60G
ext2online v1.1.19 - 2001/03/18 for EXT2FS 0.5b
new filesystem size 15728640
using 0 reserved group descriptor blocks
ext2online: ext2_ioctl: Inappropriate ioctl for device
ext2online: unable to resize /dev/mapper/vg00-backup
So ext2online doesn't work eithe
Le mardi 30 janvier 2007 22:21, Pim Bliek a écrit :
> Hi
>
> Since a couple of months I am running Etch on a new production server,
> with the following specs:
>
> - kernel 2.6.18-smp package
> - lvm 2.02.06-3
> - RAID5 on a 3Ware card (3w_9xxx)
>
> I want to grow my /var filesystem ONLINE. I can f
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:57:23AM +0100, Pim Bliek wrote:
> I said this after Pim said that...
> at some point Pim said:
> ># resize2fs -f /dev/vg00/vartest
> >> resize2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006)
> >> Filesystem at /dev/vg00/vartest is mounted on /vartest; on-line
> >> resizing required
> >> ol
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:57:23AM +0100, Pim Bliek wrote:
> Hmm, so that means I am stuck... The system was installed from a (modified
> for 3Ware card + LVM support) Sarge install CD which means 1.37 for
> e2fsprogs (I checked). So this means the -O option wasn't used...
>
> Damn.. this will mea
Hmm, so that means I am stuck... The system was installed from a (modified
for 3Ware card + LVM support) Sarge install CD which means 1.37 for
e2fsprogs (I checked). So this means the -O option wasn't used...
Damn.. this will mean I will have to recreate all filesystems on the box...
That's going
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:35:22PM -0500, Drake Mobius wrote:
> of course, only use XFS with a very reliable and stable OS and power supply.
> Being non-journalled, and all.
>
Hmm. Researching what you are talking about might be a good thing.
"XFS is a high-performance journaling file system cre
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 15:35 -0500, Drake Mobius wrote:
> of course, only use XFS with a very reliable and stable OS and power
> supply. Being non-journalled, and all.
WHAT? Stop spreading lies.
XFS is and always has been Journalled.
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-fs9.html
In
of course, only use XFS with a very reliable and stable OS and power supply.
Being non-journalled, and all.
On 1/30/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:21:59PM +0100, Pim Bliek wrote:
> Hi
>
> Since a couple of months I am running Etch on a new productio
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 06:07:47PM +0100, Pim Bliek wrote:
> Just tried the -f option on a test partition. Doesn't do the trick. Same
> error:
>
> # resize2fs -f /dev/vg00/vartest
> resize2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006)
> Filesystem at /dev/vg00/vartest is mounted on /vartest; on-line
> resizing requi
Just tried the -f option on a test partition. Doesn't do the trick. Same error:
# resize2fs -f /dev/vg00/vartest
resize2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006)
Filesystem at /dev/vg00/vartest is mounted on /vartest; on-line
resizing required
old desc_blocks = 1, new_desc_blocks = 1
resize2fs: Kernel does not s
Ehm thanx for all the comments guys. I appreciate it, but I am not
willing nor in the situation to migrate to another fs format. Also,
somehow these kind of questions always seem to start a discussion on
'what fs is best'... as boring as a vi vs. emacs discussion (it is vi,
so quit whining :P).
A
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:43:25PM +0200, Raymond A. Meijer wrote:
> On Tue 30 Jan 2007, Pim Bliek wrote:
>
> > So... what is the trick to make this work? I cannot find it.
>
> The trick, though it may not be of much help to you now, is to use ReiserFS
> instead...
>
> I've been using this feat
On Tue 30 Jan 2007, Pim Bliek wrote:
> So... what is the trick to make this work? I cannot find it.
The trick, though it may not be of much help to you now, is to use ReiserFS
instead...
I've been using this feature of ReiserFS for years and it has never failed.
Ray
--
You cannot discover n
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:21:59PM +0100, Pim Bliek wrote:
> Hi
>
> Since a couple of months I am running Etch on a new production server,
> with the following specs:
>
> - kernel 2.6.18-smp package
> - lvm 2.02.06-3
> - RAID5 on a 3Ware card (3w_9xxx)
>
> I want to grow my /var filesystem ONLIN
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:21:59PM +0100, Pim Bliek wrote:
> Hi
>
> Since a couple of months I am running Etch on a new production server,
> with the following specs:
>
> - kernel 2.6.18-smp package
> - lvm 2.02.06-3
> - RAID5 on a 3Ware card (3w_9xxx)
>
> I want to grow my /var filesystem ONLIN
51 matches
Mail list logo
