| 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 |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Repairing a possibly incomplete xfs_growfs command?, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Repairing a possibly incomplete xfs_growfs command?, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Repairing a possibly incomplete xfs_growfs command?, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Repairing a possibly incomplete xfs_growfs command?, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |