similar to: Extending LVM2 logical volumes [ was: Demonizing ... ]

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "Extending LVM2 logical volumes [ was: Demonizing ... ]"

2004 Feb 17
1
ext2online production ready?
hello, on Slackware 9.1 I have e2fsprogs 1.34 and lvm 1.0.7. In lvm package I have e2fsadm command;in e2fsprogs package I have resize2fs command. In man page for e2fsadm it refers to ext2online to extend a mounted file system, but I have not that command. Where can I find it? On my system I have resize2fs. is it the same of ext2resize or they are different programs? Are they mantained in parallel?
2005 Mar 26
7
Shrinking a ext3 filesystem ?
I installed CentOS on my home-server with 2 IDE 160GB MAXTOR HDD / RAID-1, LVM and ext3 partitions. Previous OS on this machine was FC2. I often "play" with LVM and, sometimes, have to extand or reduce some volumes size. I was surprised to see that resize2fs isn''t included anymore ! The replacing tool is ext2online but this one seems to only be able to grow a filesystem (not
2006 Aug 17
2
extending ext3 filesystem on logical volume
hello all, I am trying to expand my /var file system which resides on a logical volume. I successfully issued the lvextend command. However when I try to issue the ext2online command I receive a return code of 3 which the man pages indicates: ext2online /var ext2online v1.1.18 - 2001/03/18 for EXT2FS 0.5b ext2online: group 0, block 7 not reserved ext2online: unable to resize
2004 Dec 09
1
resize2fs on LVM on MD raid on Fedora Core 3 - inode table conflicts in fsck
Hi. I'm attempting to setup a box here to be a file-server for all my data. I'm attempting to resize an ext3 partition to demonstrate this capability to myself before fully committing to this system as the primary data storage. I'm having some problems resizing an ext3 filesystem after I've resized the underlying logical volume. Following the ext3 resize, fsck spits out lots
2005 Mar 04
1
ext2online difficulty
Hi all I am having some trouble using the ext2online utility, I have reduced the problem down to its simplist form, and it goes soemthing like this: Start with a regular msdos labelled disk (I have tried lvm volumes): Command (m for help): p Disk /dev/sdb: 18.3 GB, 18351967232 bytes 64 heads, 32 sectors/track, 17501 cylinders Units = cylinders of 2048 * 512 = 1048576 bytes Device Boot
2008 Aug 21
1
ext2online with 1k blocks not working
Hello, As a Virtuozzo users we have majority of our diskspace formatted with -i 1024 -b 1024. Lately I discovered that on CentOS 4.6 ext2online barfs when I try to grow such filesystem. Running it with -v -d, it prints lots of lines like: ext2online v1.1.18 - 2001/03/18 for EXT2FS 0.5b ext2online: 873646830 is a bad size for an ext2 fs! rounding down to 873644033 ... group NNN inode table has
2006 Nov 30
1
Need resize a partition LVM2
Ferdinando Santacroce <jesus_was_rasta at yahoo.it> wrote: > I regularly extended my volume group and the logical volume where > /var stay. Now I need to umount /var to run a resize2fs to extend the Alternatively, you can use `ext2online` to resize the filesystem while it is mounted. robert
2005 Dec 22
2
ext2online failure
Could someone tell me what could be causing this failure on my system and a way to get around/fix it? Your help is very much appreciated. I'd just finished running lvm lvextend. "lvextend -L+L1G /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00", after adding a new 1G partition (/dev/sda4) to /dev/VolGroup00. [root at ppstest13 ~]# ext2online -d -v /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 ext2online v1.1.18 -
2008 Aug 08
3
ext2online / ext2resize
I'm running CentOS 5.2 x x86_64. I did an lvextend of a logical volume, and proceeded to run one of the ext2 utilities (e.g. ext2online, ext2resize) and found to my surprise that it wasn't on there. So I started googling around, and as far as I can see, though I'm not sure, they're supposed to be a part of the e2fsprogs package. Well, it's installed on the system, at least
2001 Dec 20
2
Size of journal and resize
Hello I have some large Partiton at 2 GB, 4 GB, 7 GB, 13 GB, 25 GB. How big I need the journal for its? Could I resize ext3fs with resize2fs, ext2resize-1.17 (with ext2prepare, ext2online), parted-1.4.21 Tools? The Partititons Magic 5.0 I can't use with ext3 only with ext2. -- MfG / With best Regards Rusmir Duško Registered Linux user: #130654 http://counter.li.org
2003 Dec 04
4
ext3_get_inode_loc: bad inode number:
I've got an approximately 100GB ext3 FS which we recently sized down from 300GB using e2fsadm (with the disc offline obviously). I noticed the following in dmesg the other day: EXT3-fs error (device lvm(58,8)): ext3_get_inode_loc: bad inode number: 14827639 EXT3-fs error (device lvm(58,8)): ext3_get_inode_loc: bad inode number: 14041793 EXT3-fs error (device lvm(58,8)): ext3_get_inode_loc:
2007 Jan 04
2
Freeing pv space for snapshots
After upgrading my HD, I am now wishing I left some space for doing snapshots. Is there a way to free up some space so I can get some free PE? Right now I have this: # vgdisplay --- Volume group --- VG Name VolGroup00 System ID Format lvm2 Metadata Areas 1 Metadata Sequence No 7 VG Access read/write VG Status resizable
2005 May 29
0
Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
From: Collins Richey <crichey at gmail.com> > It's a little more than that. I find few people who consider RedHat to > be a Demon Evil or that they can't do anything right, but I can > understand the concern about some of their decisions which have made > life difficult for (granted) a few, and it's not really helpful to > demonize those who complain, as Bryan has
2006 Sep 01
0
mount problem on LVM2 w/ kernel-2.6.9-42.0.2
Recently I update a server running CentOS 4.3 to kernel 2.6.9-42.0.2. After the update it had a problem to mount LVM partitions, showing the follow error during boot: No volume groups found Activating logical volumes Unable to find volume group "lvm1" ERROR: /bin/lvm exited abnormally! (pid 199) Creating root device Mounting root filesystem mount: error 6 mounting ext3
2005 Mar 02
17
CentOS-4 i386 errata: Critical firefox security update
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-176.html refers: This update has been rated as having critical security impact by the CentOS Security Response Team. The following updated file has been uploaded and is currently syncing to the mirrors: firefox-1.0.1-1.4.3.centos4.1.i386.rpm You may update you CentOS-4 i386 installations by running the command: yum upgrade Thanks Johnny Hughes
2005 Nov 06
2
"qc-usb" kernel module src.rpm for CentOs 4.2 compile issues
Hi Ignacio, I'm running Centos 4.2 on some machines and just wonder which is the correct procedure to build one of your packages i've fonund in the fedora.ivazquez.net for FC4 but for CentOs for kernel-modules: http://fedora.ivazquez.net/yum/4/i386/SRPMS.ivazquez/kernel-module-qc-usb-0.6.3-0.iva.1.src.rpm
2006 Apr 04
1
1.0.beta5 released
Just two changes: - Beta4's SSL proxying rewrite worked worse than I thought. Reverted it back to original code. - Filesystem quota plugin now looks up the mount path correctly. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url :
2006 Apr 04
1
1.0.beta5 released
Just two changes: - Beta4's SSL proxying rewrite worked worse than I thought. Reverted it back to original code. - Filesystem quota plugin now looks up the mount path correctly. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url :
2006 Apr 12
3
1.0.beta7
Sorry, the authentication problem still wasn't actually fixed in beta6. Now, this time I tested every possible authentication case that it really works. I'll soon create a CVS branch which is going to stabilize into the 1.0 release. I won't add new features there so it shouldn't really get broken anymore, at least because of new features.. So, two changes in this release:
2006 Apr 12
3
1.0.beta7
Sorry, the authentication problem still wasn't actually fixed in beta6. Now, this time I tested every possible authentication case that it really works. I'll soon create a CVS branch which is going to stabilize into the 1.0 release. I won't add new features there so it shouldn't really get broken anymore, at least because of new features.. So, two changes in this release: