Carole Womeldorf wrote:
>
> Gordon Messmer wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 07:57, Carole Womeldorf wrote:
> > > Chris Watt wrote:
> > > > What does "df -h" tell you?
> > > >
> > > > You haven't mentioned disk space, so I apologize if this is too obvious...
> > >
> > > No need to apologize...You've hit it on the money -
> > >
> > > [carole@bgp543409bgs etc]$ df -h
> > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> > > /dev/hda3 2.4G 99M 2.1G 5% /
> > > /dev/hda1 53M 6.0M 44M 12% /boot
> > > /dev/hdc1 5.8G 1.5G 4.0G 26% /home
> > > none 125M 0 124M 0% /dev/shm
> > > /dev/hdc2 2.0G 33M 1.8G 2% /tmp
> > > /dev/hda2 16G 1.4G 13G 10% /usr
> > > /dev/hda6 53M 54M 0 100% /var
> > > /dev/cdrom 647M 647M 0 100% /mnt/cdrom
> > >
> > > Ugh. Now what?
> >
> > mkdir /var.new
> > rsync -av /var/ /var.new/
> > # Make sure that worked:
> > ls -l /var /var.new
> > # If so:
> > umount /var
> > rmdir /var
> > mv /var.new /var
> >
> > Then remove /var from /etc/fstab
> >
>
> Do I do this (as root) from the / prompt? Or where else? So I am in
> effect then moving /var onto /dev/hda3 with 2.1G to play with? And
> since at the end I mv /var.new to /var all the pointers in the files on
> /etc will still be able to find them? This sounds a bit tricky and I
> want to get it right. Is there any backup I should do before I attempt
> this? Thanks so much.
>
Blundering ahead, I have found that the "umount /var" command fails due
to
umount: /var: device is busy
What happens if I partial-force it: "umount -nrv /var" or full force it:
"umount -f /var"? FYI I tried closing all windows but my "konsole" and
retried it with the same result. Hmmm.
> Carole
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
