Filesystem type and re-sizing filesystems

2006-08-28 Thread Bernard Wu
Hi List, We are currently running SLES9-SP3. All our filesystems are type EXT3 . Aside from REISERFS , are there other filesystem types that will allow for dynamic re-sizing ? Bernie Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and

Re: Filesystem type and re-sizing filesystems

2006-08-28 Thread Carsten Otte
Bernard Wu wrote: We are currently running SLES9-SP3. All our filesystems are type EXT3 . Aside from REISERFS , are there other filesystem types that will allow for dynamic re-sizing ? I don't know what you mean by dynamic, but you can resize ext3 filesystems with resize2fs. There is also a

Re: Filesystem type and re-sizing filesystems

2006-08-28 Thread Carsten Otte
Carsten Otte wrote: I don't know what you mean by dynamic, but you can resize ext3 filesystems with resize2fs. There is also a patch that allows online resizing of ext3 filesystems (that is, resizing while the filesystem is mounted). I don't know about the state of it, therefore I would avoid to

Re: Filesystem type and re-sizing filesystems

2006-08-28 Thread Rob van der Heij
On 8/28/06, Carsten Otte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what you mean by dynamic, but you can resize ext3 filesystems with resize2fs. There is also a patch that allows online resizing of ext3 filesystems (that is, resizing while the filesystem I hope this does not make you start

Re: Filesystem type and re-sizing filesystems

2006-08-28 Thread Hall, Ken (GTI)
You can resize ext2 and ext3 filesystems while mounted with ext2online. It's a standard part of RHEL4. I don't know about other distributions. We've used it, and it works fine. -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carsten Otte Sent: Monday,

Re: Filesystem type and re-sizing filesystems

2006-08-28 Thread Carsten Otte
Rob van der Heij wrote: I hope this does not make you start smoking again, but: lrobv1:~ # resize2fs /dev/dasdd1 resize2fs 1.36 (05-Feb-2005) /dev/dasdd1 is mounted; can't resize a mounted filesystem! lrobv1:~ # cat /proc/mounts | grep dasdd1 /dev/dasdd1 /mnt/0153 ext2 rw,nogrpid 0 0 see

Re: Filesystem type and re-sizing filesystems

2006-08-28 Thread Little, Chris
-Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carsten Otte Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 11:40 AM To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Filesystem type and re-sizing filesystems Bernard Wu wrote: We are currently running SLES9-SP3.

Re: Filesystem type and re-sizing filesystems

2006-08-28 Thread Rob van der Heij
On 8/28/06, Carsten Otte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: see http://lwn.net/Articles/89560/ I may have branched relatively fast to conclusions, assuming that if ext2 does not allow resizing while mounted, ext3 would not either. The latest activity for ext2resize appears to be 2 years ago for a

Re: Bastille, RHEL 4, perl-Tk, perl-curses

2006-08-28 Thread Roach, Dennis
Thanks - The Curses one installed clean and works with Bastille. Tk has some install problems that I will need to look at if ever need it. Enjoyed you sessions at SHARE. Dennis Roach United Space Alliance 600 Gemini Avenue Mail Code USH-4A3L Houston, Texas 77058 Voice: (281) 282-2975 Page:

Init process consuming CPU

2006-08-28 Thread Marcy Cortes
Anyone know why the init process on a server (sles8 IHS 6.0.2 ) would be consuming this much CPU (or any for that matter)? Screen: ESALNXP Wells Fargo Bank - ME8VM z/VM ESAMON V3.6 08/28 15:54-16:32 1 of 3 LINUX VSI Process Statistics Report NODE LNXE8199 LIMIT 2094 X

Re: Init process consuming CPU

2006-08-28 Thread Rob van der Heij
On 8/28/06, Marcy Cortes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone know why the init process on a server (sles8 IHS 6.0.2 ) would be consuming this much CPU (or any for that matter)? It's not really the init process itself consuming CPU. The numbers reported are for the children of init. Normally when

Re: Init process consuming CPU

2006-08-28 Thread Marcy Cortes
It's consistently 6 and 7% of an IFL on 1 http server. On it's twin on the other LPAR, it's consistently about 1.5%. So, is there that much leftover because of the httpd processes? We were wondering about the differences - and also why the velocity numbers don't add up - is that a bug?: Here's