[...]
> >
> >So I hope that the addition of -p fixes this (3.4~beta1+experimental7).
>
> It does :-) . Looks like it's the end of this everlasting thread.
> Thanks for your great job with setup-storage.
>
Thanks :-) Unfortunately, this is not the only thread the two of us have open...
Best,
Mi
Could you run e2fsck interactively, doing
e2fsck -p -f /dev/vg0/usr
to see whether a safe repair can be done non-interactively? I wonder if your
filesystem is corrupted anyway and that e2fsck run before resize2fs wouldn't
even be necessary otherwise.
Works fine after an fai-sysinfo boo
>
> >>e2fsck is still grumpy:
> >>
> >>(CMD) e2fsck -f /dev/vg0/usr 1> /tmp/2jcv6xhbVE 2> /tmp/qT7zDl1RU4
> >>Executing: e2fsck -f /dev/vg0/usr
> >>Command e2fsck -f /dev/vg0/usr had exit code 8
> >>(STDERR) e2fsck 1.41.11 (14-Mar-2010)
> >>(STDERR) e2fsck: need terminal for interactive repairs
>
e2fsck is still grumpy:
(CMD) e2fsck -f /dev/vg0/usr 1> /tmp/2jcv6xhbVE 2> /tmp/qT7zDl1RU4
Executing: e2fsck -f /dev/vg0/usr
Command e2fsck -f /dev/vg0/usr had exit code 8
(STDERR) e2fsck 1.41.11 (14-Mar-2010)
(STDERR) e2fsck: need terminal for interactive repairs
http://paste.debian.net/68701
>
> >>Still failing, the last option given to e2fsck seems to be wrong:
> >>
> >>[...]
> >
> >Oh well, copy&paste is evil, isn't it? Could you please give
> >3.4~beta1+experimental6 another try?
> >
> e2fsck is still grumpy:
>
> (CMD) e2fsck -f /dev/vg0/usr 1> /tmp/2jcv6xhbVE 2> /tmp/qT7zDl1RU4
>
Still failing, the last option given to e2fsck seems to be wrong:
[...]
Oh well, copy&paste is evil, isn't it? Could you please give
3.4~beta1+experimental6 another try?
e2fsck is still grumpy:
(CMD) e2fsck -f /dev/vg0/usr 1> /tmp/2jcv6xhbVE 2> /tmp/qT7zDl1RU4
Executing: e2fsck -f
>
> You will need one more try, as resize2fs is still complaining:
>
> (CMD) resize2fs /dev/vg0/usr 16777216s 1> /tmp/Hdv5kRmDAd 2>
> /tmp/FCrWPAlXCo
> Executing: resize2fs /dev/vg0/usr 16777216s
> Command resize2fs /dev/vg0/usr 16777216s had exit code 1
> (STDERR) re
You will need one more try, as resize2fs is still complaining:
(CMD) resize2fs /dev/vg0/usr 16777216s 1> /tmp/Hdv5kRmDAd 2> /tmp/FCrWPAlXCo
Executing: resize2fs /dev/vg0/usr 16777216s
Command resize2fs /dev/vg0/usr 16777216s had exit code 1
(STDERR) resize2fs 1.41.11 (14-Mar-2010)
(STDERR) P
[...]
> >>You will need one more try, as resize2fs is still complaining:
> >>
> >>(CMD) resize2fs /dev/vg0/usr 16777216s 1> /tmp/Hdv5kRmDAd 2> /tmp/FCrWPAlXCo
> >>Executing: resize2fs /dev/vg0/usr 16777216s
> >>Command resize2fs /dev/vg0/usr 16777216s had exit code 1
> >>(STDERR) resize2fs 1.41.11
In this case, the problem is somewhat unrelated: The partitions don't seem to
fit on disk in this way. That is, there isn't sufficient space for 512 * 1024 *
1024 bytes before sda2.
Was that layout created using setup-storage? Probably yes. What I do suspect is
some rounding issue, and, well th
>
> >In this case, the problem is somewhat unrelated: The partitions don't
> >seem to
> >fit on disk in this way. That is, there isn't sufficient space for 512 *
> >1024 *
> >1024 bytes before sda2.
> >
> >Was that layout created using setup-storage? Probably yes. Wha
In this case, the problem is somewhat unrelated: The partitions don't seem to
fit on disk in this way. That is, there isn't sufficient space for 512 * 1024 *
1024 bytes before sda2.
Was that layout created using setup-storage? Probably yes. What I do suspect is
some rounding issue, and, well th
> Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
> >>>In this case, the problem is somewhat unrelated: The partitions don't seem
> >>>to
> >>>fit on disk in this way. That is, there isn't sufficient space for 512 *
> >>>1024 *
> >>>1024 bytes before sda2.
> >>>
> >>>Was that layout created using setup-storage? Pro
Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
In this case, the problem is somewhat unrelated: The partitions don't seem to
fit on disk in this way. That is, there isn't sufficient space for 512 * 1024 *
1024 bytes before sda2.
Was that layout created using setup-storage? Probably yes. What I do suspect is
some
>
> >
> >In this case, the problem is somewhat unrelated: The partitions don't seem to
> >fit on disk in this way. That is, there isn't sufficient space for 512 *
> >1024 *
> >1024 bytes before sda2.
> >
> >Was that layout created using setup-storage? Probably yes. What I do suspect
> >is
> >som
In this case, the problem is somewhat unrelated: The partitions don't seem to
fit on disk in this way. That is, there isn't sufficient space for 512 * 1024 *
1024 bytes before sda2.
Was that layout created using setup-storage? Probably yes. What I do suspect is
some rounding issue, and, well t
> > > Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
> > > >I believe resizing of logical volumes with ext2/ext3 should work as of
> > > >3.3.5+experimental1; for the moment, resize2fs will *not* be used on
> > > >normal
> > > >partitions as I'd need to take huge pains to make that work reliably,
> > > >because
>
> > Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
> > >I believe resizing of logical volumes with ext2/ext3 should work as of
> > >3.3.5+experimental1; for the moment, resize2fs will *not* be used on normal
> > >partitions as I'd need to take huge pains to make that work reliably,
> > >because
> > >resizing of the
> Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
> >I believe resizing of logical volumes with ext2/ext3 should work as of
> >3.3.5+experimental1; for the moment, resize2fs will *not* be used on normal
> >partitions as I'd need to take huge pains to make that work reliably, because
> >resizing of the underlying part
Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
I believe resizing of logical volumes with ext2/ext3 should work as of
3.3.5+experimental1; for the moment, resize2fs will *not* be used on normal
partitions as I'd need to take huge pains to make that work reliably, because
resizing of the underlying partition cannot
[...]
> >>
> >
> >Well, ideally parted would do. But that doesn't seem to work:
> >
> >Command parted -s /dev/vg0/usr resize 1 0 8192B had exit code 1
> >(STDOUT) Error: File system has an incompatible feature enabled. Compatible
> >features are has_journal, dir_index, filetype, sparse_super and
[...]
>
> The only remaining question is what to do if the volume to be
> resized does not exist : setup-storage may either complain as it
> currently does, or ignore the resize flag. As you say it's mainly a
> documentation issue. My feeling is that the volume line (IE I want
> an 8GiB volume) h
I found another issue on the LVM resize option : it always preserves
the partition. This is not appropriate, as when resizing /usr like I
do one is expecting the partition to be cleaned before the new
installation. Also, setup-storage fails if the partition does not
already exist :
Can't prese
> Hello Michael,
>
> Could you give 3.3.4+experimental2 another chance? That one should not do
> pvcreate on volumes that are part of that volume group already.
> I found another issue on the LVM resize option : it always preserves
> the partition. This is not appropriate, as when resizing
Hello Michael,
Could you give 3.3.4+experimental2 another chance? That one should not do
pvcreate on volumes that are part of that volume group already.
I found another issue on the LVM resize option : it always preserves the
partition. This is not appropriate, as when resizing /usr like I do o
Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
Hello Michael,
I think you haven't landed yet :-) There are still some obstacles out there in
space. But let me give you some new coordinates: 3.3.4+experimental1. That
version ought to work better.
Well, /usr is not removed any more, but the kernel
> Hello Michael,
> >>>I think you haven't landed yet :-) There are still some obstacles out
> >>>there in
> >>>space. But let me give you some new coordinates: 3.3.4+experimental1. That
> >>>version ought to work better.
> >>Well, /usr is not removed any more, but the kernel seems unhappy :
> >>ht
Hello Michael,
I think you haven't landed yet :-) There are still some obstacles out there in
space. But let me give you some new coordinates: 3.3.4+experimental1. That
version ought to work better.
Well, /usr is not removed any more, but the kernel seems unhappy :
http://paste.debian.net
> Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
> >
> >
> >I think you haven't landed yet :-) There are still some obstacles out there
> >in
> >space. But let me give you some new coordinates: 3.3.4+experimental1. That
> >version ought to work better.
> Well, /usr is not removed any more, but the kernel seems unha
Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
I think you haven't landed yet :-) There are still some obstacles out there in
space. But let me give you some new coordinates: 3.3.4+experimental1. That
version ought to work better.
Well, /usr is not removed any more, but the kernel seems unhappy :
http://past
[...]
> Woaw, the first one, I feel somehow like Neil Armstrong :-) . The
> paste is below, in this case I have preserved 2 other volumes, but
> the result is the same if I don't.
>
I think you haven't landed yet :-) There are still some obstacles out there in
space. But let me give you some new
Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
Hello,
I'm trying to resize the /usr volume while installing a host in
squeeze with 3.3.4~beta2+experimental1, and setup-storage strangely
removes the volume before trying to resize it:
Starting setup-storage 1.2.1+exp
[...]
vg0/usr will be resized
[...]
Executing:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to resize the /usr volume while installing a host in
> squeeze with 3.3.4~beta2+experimental1, and setup-storage strangely
> removes the volume before trying to resize it:
>
> Starting setup-storage 1.2.1+exp
> [...]
> vg0/usr will be resized
> [...]
> Executing: lvremove
Hello,
I'm trying to resize the /usr volume while installing a host in squeeze
with 3.3.4~beta2+experimental1, and setup-storage strangely removes the
volume before trying to resize it:
Starting setup-storage 1.2.1+exp
[...]
vg0/usr will be resized
[...]
Executing: lvremove -f vg0/usr
[...]
E
34 matches
Mail list logo
