[linux-lvm] online resize
Zac Slade
krakrjak at volumehost.net
Mon Mar 27 05:50:53 UTC 2006
On Sunday 26 March 2006 06:35, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> Nice story, but as a bug report, this is mostly useless:
This is not a bug report. I did not file one (at the time I didn't have the
time to track it). And I needed my data then. The time it would take to
track the bug down, get a fix and get it running would have put me even
further behind. I remade the fs into reiser3 and restored the data. I have
had many successful resizes (but grow and shrink) since using reiser3.
> * After umount, did you run an e2fsck -f?
Yes.
> * Do you have a script(1) log of the whole session? (You'd probably
> have this started as a last resort log then you started the
> fsck'ing after the resize.)
No. The session was not run through script(1).
> * What exactly is "ext resizing utilities"? Did you save a copy of
> it (incl. sources to find out about additionally applied patches?)
resize2fs. I do not have a copy of the version used.
> * These nonsensical names you refer to are the file's inode numbers,
> in decimal. For mission-critical systems, it's wise to regularly
> get inode listings with filenames. Did you compare those inode
> numbers with your backups?
I know they are inode numbers, but they don't help you much in that situation.
You think people keep inode listings with backups? What a perfect world you
live in. I think it's not superflous information, but it is not a part of
your average backup. As a matter of fact I've not incountered a system that
does this. Sure you can do this on your own and it sort of makes sense.
This just seems like a strange suggestion to me.
> * Did you prepare an image-backup of your 1GB container beforehand?
> Helps for easy recovery as well as error reproduction (esp.
> because 1GB isn't all that hard to store on one CD when there's
> plenty of free space, which can be made to compress very well.)
I did restore the data eventually. I apologize if that was not clear. I was
frustrated that the tool did not perform as expected and it is something I
should have followed up on with a bug report. I should go back and do some
experimenting with the current e2fsprogs and see if they behave better now.
--
Zac Slade
krakrjak at volumehost.net
ICQ:1415282 YM:krakrjak AIM:ttyp99
More information about the linux-lvm
mailing list