Dave Kleikamp skrev: > 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. I cannot remember whether the resizing gave me an error or not. So, i don't think it did. If there are any information you need, don't hesitate to contact me. However, I am planning to wipe that volume tonight. Would it be possible to correct the super block? I have backed everything up, so i can afford to do some risky tests!
Best regards, Simon ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
