Re: Resize2fs Questions

2022-01-31 Thread Gareth Evans
 > 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

Re: Resize2fs Questions

2022-01-31 Thread Andy Smith
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

Re: Resize2fs Questions

2022-01-31 Thread Gareth Evans
n 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 >>>>>&g

Re: Resize2fs Questions

2022-01-31 Thread Gareth Evans
McCormick >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> #I should be telling resize2fs to squeeze everything in to a 7GB >>>>> #partition. >>>>> sudo resize2fs /dev/loop0p2 +7G >>>>> [...] >>>>> then I delete P2 a

Re: Resize2fs Questions

2022-01-31 Thread Gareth Evans
> 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

Re: Resize2fs Questions

2022-01-31 Thread Andy Smith
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 > > [...]

Re: Resize2fs Questions

2022-01-31 Thread Gareth Evans
> 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

Re: Resize2fs Questions

2022-01-31 Thread Andy Smith
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.

Resize2fs Questions

2022-01-31 Thread Martin McCormick
up -P /dev/loop0 rpi1_good.img #This should show 2 partitions on loop0 when successful. sudo ls -l /dev/loop0* #You get /dev/loop0p1 and p2 #e2fs is required to run before one can resize. sudo e2fsck -f /dev/loop0p2 #I should be telling resize2fs to squeeze everything in to a 7GB #partition.

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-23 Thread Ron Johnson
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-23 Thread Ron Johnson
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-23 Thread Manoj Srivastava
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,

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-22 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-21 Thread Ron Johnson
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-21 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-21 Thread Ron Johnson
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-21 Thread Johannes Wiedersich
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-21 Thread Siggy Brentrup
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-20 Thread Ron Johnson
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-20 Thread Sven Joachim
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-20 Thread Ron Johnson
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-20 Thread Manoj Srivastava
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-19 Thread Don Quixote de la Mancha
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-19 Thread Mark Allums
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-19 Thread Ron Johnson
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-09 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-08 Thread Miles Bader
"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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-08 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
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

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-08 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
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-

Re: resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-07 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
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 > ># e

resize2fs: Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

2009-07-07 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
Hi there, I was doing an extremely simple task: shrink my home partition / resize my root partition. Steps: # 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. # umount /home # resize2fs /dev/mapper/gotlib-home 650G ... do some

Re: resize2fs

2008-01-10 Thread Douglas A. Tutty
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 > afte

Re: resize2fs

2008-01-10 Thread Theodore Tso
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&

Re: resize2fs

2008-01-09 Thread Daniel Burrows
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 mount

Re: resize2fs

2008-01-09 Thread Andrew Reid
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 a

resize2fs

2008-01-09 Thread Rick Pasotto
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 is 2.6.22-3-k7. However, this is the output of the command

Re: ext3 Partition 6GB less than underlying logical volume even after resizing using resize2fs

2007-04-06 Thread Greg Folkert
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 22:54 +0530, Siju George wrote: > Thankyou so much :-) That is good news. > How about JFS's Speed compared to ext3, ReiserFS. XFS etc in your observation? ext3 is fast, but mainly is slower than ReiserFS, JFS and XFS. JFS is very fast. It has some problem when working with

Re: ext3 Partition 6GB less than underlying logical volume even after resizing using resize2fs

2007-04-06 Thread Siju George
On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 10:54:28PM +0530, Siju George wrote: > On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about JFS's Speed compared to ext3, ReiserFS. XFS etc in your > observation? > I din't try XFS; I forget the sp

Re: ext3 Partition 6GB less than underlying logical volume even after resizing using resize2fs

2007-04-06 Thread Douglas Allan Tutty
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 10:54:28PM +0530, Siju George wrote: > On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about JFS's Speed compared to ext3, ReiserFS. XFS etc in your > observation? > I din't try XFS; I forget the specifics but there seem to have been problems. Even on my

Re: ext3 Partition 6GB less than underlying logical volume even after resizing using resize2fs

2007-04-06 Thread Siju George
On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 09:58:41PM +0530, Siju George wrote: > On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:52:30PM +0530, Siju George wrote: > >> I got a Server Installed with LVM by a third part

Re: ext3 Partition 6GB less than underlying logical volume even after resizing using resize2fs

2007-04-06 Thread Douglas Allan Tutty
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 09:58:41PM +0530, Siju George wrote: > On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:52:30PM +0530, Siju George wrote: > >> I got a Server Installed with LVM by a third party. > >> the /var/www is on LV /dev/vg1/www > >> df -h Shows

Re: ext3 Partition 6GB less than underlying logical volume even after resizing using resize2fs

2007-04-06 Thread Siju George
On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:52:30PM +0530, Siju George wrote: > Hi, > > I got a Server Installed with LVM by a third party. > > the /var/www is on LV /dev/vg1/www > > df -h Shows /var/www is only 394 GB > whereas lvdisplay shows /dev/vg1/w

Re: ext3 Partition 6GB less than underlying logical volume even after resizing using resize2fs

2007-04-06 Thread Douglas Allan Tutty
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:52:30PM +0530, Siju George wrote: > Hi, > > I got a Server Installed with LVM by a third party. > > the /var/www is on LV /dev/vg1/www > > df -h Shows /var/www is only 394 GB > whereas lvdisplay shows /dev/vg1/www to be 400 GB > I use JFS for everything, running Etc

ext3 Partition 6GB less than underlying logical volume even after resizing using resize2fs

2007-04-06 Thread Siju George
websrv-1:/# resize2fs /dev/vg1/www resize2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006) Resizing the filesystem on /dev/vg1/www to 106168320 (4k) blocks. The filesystem on /dev/vg1/www is now 106168320 blocks long. websrv-1:/# websrv-1:/# mount /var/www websrv-1:/# df -h FilesystemSize Used Avail Use

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-02-03 Thread Alan Chandler
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

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-02-02 Thread Andrew Sackville-West
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 /d

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-02-02 Thread Pim Bliek
# 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

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-02-02 Thread Pim Bliek
# 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

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-02-01 Thread Gilles Mocellin
/var filesystem ONLINE. I can find tons of docs on > offline resizing, but I am not in the position to go into single user > and umount it. This is production. > > I took ext3 as the fs, since this is supposed to be able to resize > online. So I went (/var is now 4 GB): > > #

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-02-01 Thread Andrew Sackville-West
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;

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-02-01 Thread Roberto C. Sanchez
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

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-02-01 Thread Pim Bliek
hat's going to be some downtime somewhere... There is no alternative? No way to 'migrate' this fs to work with resizing? Pim # resize2fs -f /dev/vg00/vartest > resize2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006) > Filesystem at /dev/vg00/vartest is mounted on /vartest; on-line > resizing r

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-01-31 Thread Roberto C. Sanchez
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

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-01-31 Thread Greg Folkert
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

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-01-31 Thread Drake Mobius
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

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-01-31 Thread Andrew Sackville-West
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 /vart

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-01-31 Thread Pim Bliek
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 doe

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-01-31 Thread Pim Bliek
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

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-01-31 Thread Roberto C. Sanchez
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

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-01-31 Thread Raymond A. Meijer
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

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-01-30 Thread Roberto C. Sanchez
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

Re: resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-01-30 Thread Andrew Sackville-West
ow 4 GB): > > # lvextend -L 6G /dev/vg00/var > # resize2fs -p /dev/vg00/var > resize2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006) > Filesystem at /dev/vg00/var is mounted on /var; on-line resizing required > old desc_blocks = 1, new_desc_blocks = 1 > resize2fs: Kernel does not support online resizing > n

resize2fs on LVM2 on hardware RAID5

2007-01-30 Thread Pim Bliek
to go into single user and umount it. This is production. I took ext3 as the fs, since this is supposed to be able to resize online. So I went (/var is now 4 GB): # lvextend -L 6G /dev/vg00/var # resize2fs -p /dev/vg00/var resize2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006) Filesystem at /dev/vg00/var is mounted on