Thanks for the response, Dave! I have some additional questions inline.
On Fri 01/07/11 3:46 AM , Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So either way, you will have to unmount the filesystem.
Yikes! I am guessing that may put the filesystem at risk of not being able to
re-mount without xfs_db commands, as happened to the other posters I cited. If
I want to minimize the amount of downtime if umounting does cause the fs not to
be mountable, is there a way for me to look at the xfs_db output after I
umount, and calculate any new parameters myself? Or is that considered
generally unwise, and xfs_db needs an expert to look at the output? I want to
minimize downtime, but I also want to minimize the risk of data loss, so I
wouldn't want to derive my own xfs_db commands unless it was very safe. (Even
with backups available, it's more work to switch over or restore if I do lose
the filesystem; we're a small group so we don't have an automatic failover
Are there any other docs concerning using xfs_db? I saw a post from last year
that said that there weren't, but I'm wondering if that's changed since then.
There is of course the man page, but that doesn't describe how to interpret
what's going on from its output (or what the correct steps to take are if
there's a problem).
> > ==Assuming my filesystem is healthy, will a simple kernel update
> > (and reboot of course!) allow me to resize the filesystem in one
> > step, instead of 2TB increments?
> I'd upgrade both kernel and userspace.
Would you recommend upgrading userspace from source? CentOS 5 still calls the
version available (from their centosplus repo) 2.9.4, but I haven't
investigated what sort of patches they may have applied.