xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Repairing a possibly incomplete xfs_growfs command?

To: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Repairing a possibly incomplete xfs_growfs command?
From: "Mark Magpayo" <mmagpayo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:04:47 -0800
Cc: "David Chinner" <dgc@xxxxxxx>, <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <478FA832.7030200@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <9CE70E6ED2C2F64FB5537A2973FA4F02535951@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <478FA832.7030200@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AchZQC5sODYdpjb1St20lBiaF27SXQABPn4Q
Thread-topic: Repairing a possibly incomplete xfs_growfs command?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Sandeen [mailto:sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:11 AM
> To: Mark Magpayo
> Cc: David Chinner; xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Repairing a possibly incomplete xfs_growfs command?
> 
> Mark Magpayo wrote:
> 
> > Someone else asked for the size of the block devices... here's the
> > output from /proc/partitions:
> >
> > 152     0 9523468862 etherd/e1.0
> > 152    16 9523468862 etherd/e0.0
> 
> 
> are those two assembled into your actual block device?  They look each
> about 8T.
> 
> Is the lvm device also in /proc/partitions?
> 
> -Eric

Here's the entire output:

major minor  #blocks  name

   3     0     512000 hda
   3     1     511528 hda1
 152     0 9523468862 etherd/e1.0
 152    16 9523468862 etherd/e0.0
 254     0 19046932480 dm-0


I believe dm-0 is the lvm device.

Thanks,

Mark


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>