search for: 222g

.../dev/shm tmpfs 7.9G 3.9M 7.9G 1% /run tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup /dev/mapper/prop-root 15G 7.4G 6.3G 55% / tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /tmp /dev/mapper/prop-boot 477M 95M 358M 21% /boot /dev/mapper/prop-home 222G 212G 9.9G 96% /home The image is the 222G /home partition only. The other partitions are on another image. Any ideas how to troubleshoot this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Alex

.../dev/shm tmpfs 7.9G 3.9M 7.9G 1% /run tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup /dev/mapper/prop-root 15G 7.4G 6.3G 55% / tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /tmp /dev/mapper/prop-boot 477M 95M 358M 21% /boot /dev/mapper/prop-home 222G 212G 9.9G 96% /home The image is the 222G /home partition only. The other partitions are on another image. Any ideas how to troubleshoot this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Alex

...tmpfs 7.9G 643M 7.3G 9% /run tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup /dev/mapper/prop-root 15G 11G 2.9G 79% / tmpfs 7.9G 12K 7.9G 1% /tmp /dev/mapper/prop-boot 477M 95M 358M 21% /boot /dev/mapper/prop-home 222G 215G 7.6G 97% /home I'll add this info to the bug report. I've got 7.6G left. I think I'll attach a new disk with enough space and copy the contents over so I can keep the system running. I'll hopefully be able to work on the bug soon too. Thanks, Alex

...9% /run >> tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup >> /dev/mapper/prop-root 15G 11G 2.9G 79% / >> tmpfs 7.9G 12K 7.9G 1% /tmp >> /dev/mapper/prop-boot 477M 95M 358M 21% /boot >> /dev/mapper/prop-home 222G 215G 7.6G 97% /home >> >> I'll add this info to the bug report. > > Just to be clear, it has multiple virtual block devices, eg. > /dev/vda and /dev/vdb ...? > > This isn't (currently) a supported configuration for virt-resize, > although it ought to be. Ye...

.../dev/shm tmpfs 7.9G 3.9M 7.9G 1% /run tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup /dev/mapper/prop-root 15G 7.4G 6.3G 55% / tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /tmp /dev/mapper/prop-boot 477M 95M 358M 21% /boot /dev/mapper/prop-home 222G 212G 9.9G 96% /home The image is the 222G /home partition only. The other partitions are on another image. There are a bunch of links regarding other methods for resizing an LVM from within a VM. I don't know which to follow. Can someone make a recommendation of one they know works with cu...

...9.1K /tank/iscsi_luns tank/iscsi_luns/vol1 35.9K 1.78T 35.9K - tank/iscsi_luns/vol2 35.9K 1.78T 35.9K - tank/iscsi_luns/vol3 35.9K 1.78T 35.9K - root at hzsilo:/tank# zpool list NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT home 222G 92.5K 222G 0% ONLINE - tank 2.27T 419K 2.27T 0% ONLINE - Previously created using method described here: http://www.cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=775 root at hzsilo:/tank# iscsitadm list target Target: tank/iscsi_luns/vol2 iSCSI Name: iqn...

...7.9G 3.9M 7.9G 1% /run > tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup > /dev/mapper/prop-root 15G 7.4G 6.3G 55% / > tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /tmp > /dev/mapper/prop-boot 477M 95M 358M 21% /boot > /dev/mapper/prop-home 222G 212G 9.9G 96% /home > > The image is the 222G /home partition only. The other partitions are > on another image. > > Any ideas how to troubleshoot this would be greatly appreciated. > Thanks, > Alex > > _______________________________________________ > libvirt-us...

...7.9G 643M 7.3G 9% /run > tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup > /dev/mapper/prop-root 15G 11G 2.9G 79% / > tmpfs 7.9G 12K 7.9G 1% /tmp > /dev/mapper/prop-boot 477M 95M 358M 21% /boot > /dev/mapper/prop-home 222G 215G 7.6G 97% /home > > I'll add this info to the bug report. Just to be clear, it has multiple virtual block devices, eg. /dev/vda and /dev/vdb ...? This isn't (currently) a supported configuration for virt-resize, although it ought to be. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualizat...

Hi, >> >> > # virt-resize -d --expand /dev/sda1 --LV-expand /dev/mapper/prop-home >> >> > prop-1.img prop-expand.img >> >> > command line: virt-resize -d --expand /dev/sda1 --LV-expand >> >> > /dev/mapper/prop-home prop-1.img prop-expand.img >> >> > Examining prop-1.img ... >> >> > libguestfs: trace:

Currently I''m trying to figure out the best zfs layout for a thumper wrt. to read AND write performance. I did some simple mkfile 512G tests and found out, that per average ~ 500 MB/s seems to be the maximum on can reach (tried initial default setup, all 46 HDDs as R0, etc.). According to http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/ArchitectureWP_062806.pdf I would

...metaslab 31 offset 7c000000000 spacemap 32 free 256G segments 1227 maxsize 50.4G freepct 99% metaslab 32 offset 80000000000 spacemap 33 free 243G segments 1860 maxsize 222G freepct 94% metaslab 33 offset 84000000000 spacemap 34 free 9.9G segments 2490 maxsize 9.40G freepct 3% metaslab 34 offset 88000000000 spacemap 254 free 9.21G segments...