Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ylpvm43.prodigy.net (ylpvm43-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.57.74]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j3SLn97J006262 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:49:10 -0700 Received: from pimout3-ext.prodigy.net (pimout3-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.102]) by ylpvm43.prodigy.net (8.12.10 outbound/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3SLn8YL007022 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:49:08 -0400 X-ORBL: [67.124.119.21] Received: from taniwha.stupidest.org (adsl-67-124-119-21.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [67.124.119.21]) by pimout3-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.10 milter /8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3SLmx5Y151246; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:49:04 -0400 Received: by taniwha.stupidest.org (Postfix, from userid 38689) id D9EF4115C869; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:48:58 -0700 From: Chris Wedgwood To: David Sparks Cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM Message-ID: <20050428214858.GA5734@taniwha.stupidest.org> References: <22029.1114645639@ocs3.ocs.com.au> <42713F67.6010905@activestate.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42713F67.6010905@activestate.com> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.83/858/Thu Apr 28 07:02:38 2005 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 5109 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: cw@f00f.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs Content-Length: 756 Lines: 22 On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 12:54:15PM -0700, David Sparks wrote: > How big is the superblock? 512 bytes usually (I guess with larger sector size it's sorta larger) > Was only the superblock damaged by "fixing" the partition table with > fdisk? I didn't read the original message, but if you use XFS on the device (not a partition) then fdisk and friends will break SB0. This is because XFS places the first super block right at the start of the disk (all other common Linux filesystems leave some space so this doesn't bite them). > One could just rename fdisk on machines directly attached to the > storage to prevent accidental damage. (very cheesy) Sounds like a better idea is to educate the sysadmins and failing that whip them with salty reeds.