On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:33 +0100, Simon Lundell wrote: > > It's been a while since I played with resize. I'll try to find some > > time to do put it though some testing to see if I can reproduce > > something like this. Oh, what is your kernel version? > also, the filesystem might have been mounted while I extended the volume > group. But, as you point out, lvm shouldn't have touched the fs anyway?
Right, it's normal to extend the volume while the file system is mounted. > One strange thing is that fsck reports the original size of the fs (in > blocks) but df -h reports the new size. This makes it sound like the resize failed somewhere between updating the block allocation map and writing the updated superblock. This would actually explain the fsck failure. If the journal was moved to the end of the expanded lv, and the block allocation map was extended into the new space, but the superblock is never updated with the new size or new position of the journal, the failures make sense. I'll have to look at making this more robust. Thanks for all the information. Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
