On 12/6/20 11:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Slightly off topic and also hypothetical. Assume the same physical
> setup, but what if both were Btrfs?
Thanks Chris for that. Always enjoy the BTRFS inslights you provide.
--
Jorge
___
users mailing list --
Slightly off topic and also hypothetical. Assume the same physical
setup, but what if both were Btrfs?
/dev/sda148.8G
/dev/sda2 881.6G
Let's say /dev/sda1 is mounted at /mnt/one
And say /dev/sda2 is mounted at /mnt/two
I'd likely use 'btrfs send/receive' to replicate the subvolumes
On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 17:56:34 -0400, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
> On 12/6/20 4:21 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> You *can* do this, but you have to understand what is happening. First
>> the entire partition is moved (copied) to the new position. So all
>> 881GB of data has to be read and written. And if
On 12/6/20 6:03 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> gparted has to copy the entire 881GB of partition data from where it
> is to the new position. Then it will call resizefs to adjust the
> filesystem end.
ok, thanks. I didn't know Gparted was brave enough to have that feature...
--
Jorge
___
On 12/6/20 1:56 PM, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
On 12/6/20 4:21 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
You *can* do this, but you have to understand what is happening. First
the entire partition is moved (copied) to the new position. So all
881GB of data has to be read and written. And if the process gets
interrup
On 12/6/20 4:21 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> You *can* do this, but you have to understand what is happening. First
> the entire partition is moved (copied) to the new position. So all
> 881GB of data has to be read and written. And if the process gets
> interrupted for any reason, your filesyste
Backups needed! Plural. Anytime someone openly admits they're screwed
if they lose certain files, it tells me at least two backup copies are
needed. In my case, the "I'm screwed" data is in a minimum of 4
independent backups including one offsite. Only one of those is raid1
and even though there ar
On 12/6/20 11:06 AM, Amadeus WM via users wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 13:18:15 -0400, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
On 12/6/20 1:07 PM, Amadeus WM via users wrote:
Or, maybe gparted? I can delete sda1, then expand sda2 to the beginning
of the disk. Would that work?
Hi,
No, you can't. You can only ex
On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 13:18:15 -0400, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
> On 12/6/20 1:07 PM, Amadeus WM via users wrote:
>> Or, maybe gparted? I can delete sda1, then expand sda2 to the beginning
>> of the disk. Would that work?
>
> Hi,
>
> No, you can't. You can only expand forward; not backward (to the
> b
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 05:38:56PM -, Amadeus WM via users wrote:
> I guess that would work too, except I have far more and more important
> data on sda2, so if that gets messed up, I'm screwed.
O, this statement makes me concerned. That drive could fail at any
minute. The absolute best t
Hmmm, that's a bummer!
I guess that would work too, except I have far more and more important
data on sda2, so if that gets messed up, I'm screwed.
On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 13:18:15 -0400, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
> On 12/6/20 1:07 PM, Amadeus WM via users wrote:
>> Or, maybe gparted? I can delete s
On 12/6/20 1:07 PM, Amadeus WM via users wrote:
> Or, maybe gparted? I can delete sda1, then expand sda2 to the beginning
> of the disk. Would that work?
Hi,
No, you can't. You can only expand forward; not backward (to the
beginning as you say). For example, you could delete sda2 and expand
sda
I have a disk that looks like this:
[root@alpha ~]# /sbin/fdisk -l /dev/sda
Disk /dev/sda: 930.39 GiB, 998999326720 bytes, 1951170560 sectors
Disk model: VIRTUAL DISK
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 byt
13 matches
Mail list logo
