On 12/07/16 16:24, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Morgan Read <mstuff@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, it seems to have reduced the volumes, but not the filesystems:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume Pool Volume size FS
FS size Free Type Mount point
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
/dev/mapper/luks-a69b434b-c409-4612-a51e-4bb0162cb316
crypt_pool 192.73 GB ext4
195.73 GB 21.40 GB crypt /home
/dev/mapper/luks-d313ea5e-fe14-4967-b11c-ae0e03c348b6
crypt_pool 17.00 GB ext4
20.00 GB 14.70 GB crypt /
You're right, this is damn peculiar.
The way I'm reading this, each LV is separately encrypted, is that
right? And then it's the dmcrypt/LUKS volume that is formatted ext4?
So:
ext4
|
LUKS
|
LV
|
VG
|
PV
|
Disk
If so, as far as I can tell it's correct to point it at the LUKS
volume, the thing that is mounted.
Yes, that's it - I prefer to look up at the underside of the disk though :')
Historically, I've always had / /home and /usr/local on separate
partitions, then LVM came along, then LUKS came along - then I started
to find I wanted to preserve /var and /opt during upgrades. Perhaps, if
I didn't suffer from historical inertia then I would have encrypted the
whole disk putting LUKS on top of the LVM (or, below from the way you're
looking at disks - anyway, so individual partitions weren't encrypted
but the whole disk, or should that be PV or LV...). I've never been
able to see where the balance of benefits lies between LVM/LUKS and
LUKS/LVM.
I've cut and pasted direct from the terminal - no omissions or additions to
the series of commands and outputs.
Following the two above commands, ssm lists the two volumes as reduced in
size by 3G, but the file system's size (FS size) as remaining the same...
But what I'm seeing is *ONLY* the LUKS volume was reduced. The LV is
the same size as before.
ssm is apparently confused about the stack relationships. It's
treating the command literally for only the dmcrypt volume, not the
file system and not the LV. Off hand I'd say that's a really big bug.
Hmm, yes. The developer seems to have acknowledged that on the bug report.
...
So it's catch 22. It can't be shrunk now because the proper accounting
can't be done. It can't be fixed until the partition is resized to
match the volume size, and even then the fixing may fail for multiple
reasons.
Bugger! (Thank god I wasn't so cavalier to do this without b/u first!)
Docs, docs, docs!
...
I don't know what you mean by the last sentence. The LV is the
underlying system, LUKS volumes is above that, and the fs is above
that. Shrink has to be done top to bottom, which is what it seems you
I'm a Kiwi - perhaps I see things the other way up? :)
Many thanks for your help getting to the bottom of this.
Regards
Morgan.
--
Morgan Read
<mailto:mstuffATreadDOTorgDOTnz>
Confused about DRM?
Get all the info you need at:
http://drm.info/
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
