1)  You're old /usr showed up as dasdc1 on your previous posts..   What does
lsdasd and cat /etc/fstab look like?  Also - does the directory /usrsp2
exist?   It must before it can be mounted to.

2)  It looks like it  :-)

3)  You had to create /usrnew directory to mount to it ...   now that you
don't need it - you need to 'rm -r /usrnew' to get rid of it.   Do an ls
/usrnew   to make sure nothing's under it.

4)  That's to unmount/remount things like /usr which will show as busy if
you try and unmount them at higher init levels.   A reboot works just as
well - if you have /etc/fstab setup correctly.

5) See #2


Scott

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Slaughter, Dale <[email protected]>wrote:

> Thanks to everyone who's replied.  I followed the process that was sent in
>      http://www.linuxvm.org/Info/HOWTOs/movefs.html
> with the following deviation:  I had already used yast to activate and
> format the disk as ReiserFS, and assigned it a mountpoint of /usrnew.  I've
> followed steps 4 and 5.  The yast process had already updated /etc/fstab to
> include the new disk with the /usrnew mount.  For step 7, after the "tar"
> command was done, I edited /etc/fstab to change the mountpoint of /usrnew to
> /usr, and changed the old /usr to /usrsp2.  I then rebooted.
>
> "df -h" doesn't show /usrsp2, even though there was an entry for it in
> /etc/fstab.  I then check the partitioner in yast and there is an * besides
> it name in the column that has the mountpoint name.  The /usr below is the
> new /usr that was just created.  The old /usr, which I had updated
> /etc/fstab with a mountpoint of /usrsp2 doesn't show up under "mount"
> either.
>
> Question 1:  What is happening that I can't see the old /usr, which I
> thought would have been mounted under /usrsp2?
>
> Question 2:  Is everything OK?
>
> Question 3:  Why do I still see /usrnew, which is not mounted?  It's
> possible that when I was trying a 'mv" yesterday it was created by me.
>
> Question 4:  I'm not sure of the purpose of step 8 in the HOWTO.  I did the
> "telinit 1" and then the umount comes back with 'umount: /usr: device is
> busy', which I think subsequently killed the system.  If the old /usr is on
> a disk that isn't mounted, is it necessary to delete what's on it, since the
> disk will probably be return to the VM guys for other purposes.
>
> Question 5:  Is everything OK as it now sits?
>
>
>
> "df -h":
>
> Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/dasdb1           1.2G  158M 1016M  14% /
> udev                  184M  200K  184M   1% /dev
> /dev/dasda1            69M   14M   52M  21% /boot
> /dev/dasdh1           2.3G   85M  2.3G   4% /home
> /dev/dasdg1           1.2G  843M  331M  72% /opt
> /dev/dasdd1           1.1G  323M  711M  32% /var
> /dev/mapper/tmpvg-tmpvol
>                       14G   98M   14G   1% /tmp
> /dev/dasdq1           2.3G   33M  2.3G   2% /unused
> /dev/dasdp1           4.6G  1.9G  2.8G  41% /usr
>
>
> "mount":
>
> /dev/dasdb1 on / type reiserfs (rw,acl,user_xattr)
> proc on /proc type proc (rw)
> sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)
> debugfs on /sys/kernel/debug type debugfs (rw)
> udev on /dev type tmpfs (rw)
> devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,mode=0620,gid=5)
> /dev/dasda1 on /boot type ext2 (rw,acl,user_xattr)
> /dev/dasdh1 on /home type reiserfs (rw,acl,user_xattr)
> /dev/dasdg1 on /opt type reiserfs (rw,acl,user_xattr)
> /dev/dasdd1 on /var type reiserfs (rw,acl,user_xattr)
> /dev/mapper/tmpvg-tmpvol on /tmp type reiserfs (rw,acl,user_xattr)
> /dev/dasdq1 on /unused type reiserfs (rw,acl,user_xattr)
> /dev/dasdp1 on /usr type reiserfs (rw,acl,user_xattr)
>
>
> "l" command:
>
> total 33
> drwxr-xr-x 30 root  root      728 2010-01-06 13:40 ./
> drwxr-xr-x 30 root  root      728 2010-01-06 13:40 ../
> drwxr-xr-x  2 root  root     2384 2009-04-23 15:10 bin/
> drwxr-xr-x  4 root  root     4096 2010-01-06 13:40 boot/
> drwx------  8 20631 uuxstaff  584 2009-04-23 15:17 candle/
> drwxr-xr-x  9 root  root     2800 2010-01-06 13:40 dev/
> drwxr-xr-x 81 root  root     6928 2010-01-06 13:40 etc/
> drwxr-xr-x 16 root  root      400 2009-10-23 05:32 home/
> lrwxrwxrwx  1 root  root        5 2009-05-01 13:35 homedir -> /home/
> drwxr-xr-x 10 root  root     3808 2009-04-23 09:49 lib/
> drwxr-xr-x  5 root  root     4720 2009-11-11 11:49 lib64/
> drwxr-xr-x  5 root  root      128 2009-06-19 10:10 local/
> drwxr-xr-x  2 root  root       48 2009-06-10 11:39 .mc/
> drwxr-xr-x  2 root  root       48 2007-05-03 11:05 media/
> drwxr-xr-x  3 root  root       72 2009-04-23 10:46 mnt/
> drwxr-xr-x 11 root  root      248 2009-08-27 08:26 opt/
> dr-xr-xr-x 68 root  root        0 2010-01-06 13:40 proc/
> drwx------ 12 root  root      536 2010-01-06 11:23 root/
> drwxr-xr-x  3 root  root     9568 2009-05-07 07:14 sbin/
> drwxr-xr-x  4 root  root       96 2009-04-23 09:45 srv/
> drwxr-xr-x  3 root  root       72 2009-05-06 20:31 stage/
> drwxr-xr-x  2 root  root       48 2009-05-11 10:40 swap/
> drwxr-xr-x  3 root  root       72 2009-05-06 15:38 .swdis/
> drwxr-xr-x 11 root  root        0 2010-01-06 13:40 sys/
> drwxrwxrwt 24 root  root     1288 2010-01-06 14:00 tmp/
> drwxr-xr-x  4 root  root       80 2010-01-05 15:54 unused/
> drwxr-xr-x 16 root  root      424 2009-04-23 11:24 usr/
> drwxr-xr-x  2 root  root       48 2010-01-05 15:08 usrnew/
> drwxr-xr-x 16 root  root      392 2009-09-02 11:52 var/
>
>
>
>
>
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> |Scott Rohling
> |Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:55 AM
> |To: [email protected]
> |Subject: Re: SLES 10 SP2 upgrade to SLES 10 SP3 error
> |
> |Good points ..  you're right - that would have been messy.
> |
> |And actually - since these are mount points -- no rename is really
> |necessary
> |-- just mount the correct device under /usr.
> |
> |Scot
> |
> |On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Kim Goldenberg <[email protected]>
> |wrote:
> |
> |> On 01/06/2010 11:20 AM, Scott Rohling wrote:
> |>
> |>> 2)  Just use 'mv' ..    mv /usr /usrold          mv /usrnew /usr   ..
> |>> it's just a rename.
> |>>
> |>>  a) If you were to use this, it would be
> |>
> |>    mv  -r /usr /usrnew
> |>
> |> note the "-r" to recurs to lower directories.
> |>
> |> b) If it were on one mount point, it would be a rename, but would
> |change
> |> the ownership to the
> |> user and group executing the command. As the OP said this was between
> |> mount point, this would
> |> be an actual move, with the same caveat as previous. It would also
> |wreak
> |> havok on any links,
> |> hard or soft.
> |>
> |> Kim
> |>
> |>
> |> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> |> For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> |> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390
> |or
> |> visit
> |> http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
> |>
> |
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------
> |For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> |send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
> |visit
> |http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

Reply via email to