Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*SAN\s+resizing\s+disk\,\s+no\s+LVM\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*SAN\s+resizing\s+disk\,\s+no\s+LVM\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: David Sparks <daves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:02:26 -0700; I have a SAN that allows resizing of the logical disks it exports. Basically you can increase the size of a logical disk, refresh the linux driver and linux sees a bigger disk. I put a XFS fs directl; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00111.html (8,194 bytes)
2. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:16:12 +1000; A block device is a block device is a ... It is safe, as long as no other tool tries to access /dev/sdb. In particular, if anything tries to partition /dev/sdb or to install a boot loader on /dev/sdb; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00112.html (8,607 bytes)
3. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: David Sparks <daves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:34:38 -0700; The main idea is that LVM isn't required to resize the disk. A `xfs_growfs /mnt/sdb` is sufficient Is there a simple way to resize a partition with a fs inside it? I do appreciate the warning, I see; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00113.html (9,019 bytes)
4. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:47:19 +1000; Resizing any partitition by increasing the end address is easy, as long as there is free space after the parttion being grown. Both parted and fdisk can change the end address, then you run xfs_growf; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00114.html (9,477 bytes)
5. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:48:51 -0700; not with the current linux partition code, it's not really desirable anyhow if you are using LVM i would argue; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00115.html (8,018 bytes)
6. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:51:36 -0700; the kernel won't notice partitions increasing in size if *any* parition on that disk in is use though; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00116.html (8,343 bytes)
7. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: David Sparks <daves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:54:15 -0700; How big is the superblock? Was only the superblock damaged by "fixing" the partition table with fdisk? One could just rename fdisk on machines directly attached to the storage to prevent accidental; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00120.html (8,437 bytes)
8. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: Michael Loftis <mloftis@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:04:37 -0600; --On Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:54 -0700 David Sparks <daves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: The reason that I'm asking these questions is that LVM does not seem to work well with resizing of the physical d; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00121.html (8,815 bytes)
9. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:48:58 -0700; 512 bytes usually (I guess with larger sector size it's sorta larger) 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. Thi; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00122.html (8,607 bytes)
10. SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: David Sparks <daves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:02:26 -0700; I have a SAN that allows resizing of the logical disks it exports. Basically you can increase the size of a logical disk, refresh the linux driver and linux sees a bigger disk. I put a XFS fs directl; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00239.html (8,194 bytes)
11. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:16:12 +1000; A block device is a block device is a ... It is safe, as long as no other tool tries to access /dev/sdb. In particular, if anything tries to partition /dev/sdb or to install a boot loader on /dev/sdb; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00240.html (8,607 bytes)
12. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: David Sparks <daves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:34:38 -0700; The main idea is that LVM isn't required to resize the disk. A `xfs_growfs /mnt/sdb` is sufficient Is there a simple way to resize a partition with a fs inside it? I do appreciate the warning, I see; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00241.html (9,019 bytes)
13. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:47:19 +1000; Resizing any partitition by increasing the end address is easy, as long as there is free space after the parttion being grown. Both parted and fdisk can change the end address, then you run xfs_growf; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00242.html (9,477 bytes)
14. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:48:51 -0700; not with the current linux partition code, it's not really desirable anyhow if you are using LVM i would argue; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00243.html (8,018 bytes)
15. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:51:36 -0700; the kernel won't notice partitions increasing in size if *any* parition on that disk in is use though; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00244.html (8,343 bytes)
16. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: David Sparks <daves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:54:15 -0700; How big is the superblock? Was only the superblock damaged by "fixing" the partition table with fdisk? One could just rename fdisk on machines directly attached to the storage to prevent accidental; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00248.html (8,437 bytes)
17. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: Michael Loftis <mloftis@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:04:37 -0600; --On Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:54 -0700 David Sparks <daves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: The reason that I'm asking these questions is that LVM does not seem to work well with resizing of the physical d; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00249.html (8,815 bytes)
18. Re: SAN resizing disk, no LVM (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:48:58 -0700; 512 bytes usually (I guess with larger sector size it's sorta larger) 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. Thi; /archives/xfs/2005-04/msg00250.html (8,607 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]