On 19.3.2012 10:14, Peter Kjellström wrote: > On Sunday 18 March 2012 19.40.21 Ray Van Dolson wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 08:04:14PM +0100, Markus Falb wrote: >>> What filesystem? Assuming ext3, this cannot shrunk without unmounting. >>> I believe the following *should* work for ext3 >>> >>> $ umount /home >>> $ e2fsck -f /dev/vg_web/lv_home >>> $ resize2fs /dev/vg_web/lv_home 150g >>> $ lvresize -L 150g /dev/vg_web/lv_home >>> $ mount /home >>> >>> I am not sure how safe it is. Take care! > I'd like to add that it's probably good paranoia not to size the lv down too > tightly (should it happen to become smaller than the fs then ooops). That is, > I'd size the lv down to a comfortable margin above the fs size (and then size > the fs up to the device size). Hmm. I did that too a couple of times in the past. But why? What are the reasons for the paranoia? I did a little experiment $ lvcreate -L1g -ntest1 vg00 $ mkfs.ext3 /dev/vg00/test1 ... 131072 inodes, 262144 blocks ... $ lvcreate -L2g -ntest2 vg00 $ mkfs.ext3 /dev/vg00/test2 $ resize2fs /dev/vg00/test2 1g resize2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006) Resizing the filesystem on /dev/vg00/test2 to 262144 (4k) blocks. The filesystem on /dev/vg00/test2 is now 262144 blocks long. The sizes (262144) match! -- Kind Regards, Markus Falb
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
