| To: | Lance Reed <lreed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Problems with xfs_grow on large LVM + XFS filesystem 20TB size check 2 failed |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:55:21 -0500 |
| Cc: | "markgw@xxxxxxx" <markgw@xxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <6A32BC807C106440B7E23208F280DDAF01D21F3870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <6A32BC807C106440B7E23208F280DDAF01D21F36FD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <481650F5.40205@xxxxxxxxxxx> <6A32BC807C106440B7E23208F280DDAF01D21F3718@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <481656F6.5030300@xxxxxxxxxxx> <48166E18.10008@xxxxxxx> <48166F42.50104@xxxxxxxxxxx> <6A32BC807C106440B7E23208F280DDAF01D21F384B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48175046.5050405@xxxxxxxxxxx> <6A32BC807C106440B7E23208F280DDAF01D21F3870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) |
Lance Reed wrote: > Thanks, > > Sorry, I am a bit confused on the "data section" vs. the "real-time section"? > > Is it enough to just run "xfs_growfs -D XXX /mntpoint" and the rest should > fall into place. > > Again, sorry for being dense. > I really appraciate the rapid feedback. > Unless you specifically made a filesystem with a realtime subvol, just ignore it, it's not created by default. So yes, -D <size> (in blocks) is what you want. A little cumbersome but not too bad :) -Eric |
| Previous by Date: | RE: Problems with xfs_grow on large LVM + XFS filesystem 20TB size check 2 failed, Lance Reed |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: correct use of vmtruncate()?, Zach Brown |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Problems with xfs_grow on large LVM + XFS filesystem 20TB size check 2 failed, Lance Reed |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Problems with xfs_grow on large LVM + XFS filesystem 20TB size check 2 failed, Lance Reed |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |