Re: resizing an lvm volume with setup-storage

2010-03-26 Diskussionsfäden Nicolas Courtel
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

Re: resizing an lvm volume with setup-storage

2010-03-26 Diskussionsfäden Michael Tautschnig
> 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

setup-storage and preserving partitions

2010-03-26 Diskussionsfäden Jeffrey Stolte
We have been using FAI for several years, but have just started to try disk partitioning with setup-storage. Our standard disk configuration uses 2 primary partitions and 3 logical partitions. We would like to preserve the *size* of all partitions and preserve the *contents* of only the last two

Re: setup-storage and preserving partitions

2010-03-26 Diskussionsfäden Michael Tautschnig
> We have been using FAI for several years, but have just started to try > disk partitioning with setup-storage. Our standard disk configuration > uses 2 primary partitions and 3 logical partitions. We would like > to preserve the *size* of all partitions and preserve the *contents* > of only the

Re: resizing an lvm volume with setup-storage

2010-03-26 Diskussionsfäden Nicolas Courtel
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

Re: setup-storage and preserving partitions

2010-03-26 Diskussionsfäden Jeffrey Stolte
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 05:01:00PM +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote: > > I think I never thought of such a use case :-) - whatever the reasons > may be that you are so keen on preserving sizes, as apparently > nobody requested "preserve the size only" before, that feature is > indeed missing. For