On 19.3.2012 10:14, Peter Kjellström wrote:
On Sunday 18 March 2012 19.40.21 Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 08:04:14PM +0100, Markus Falb wrote:
What filesystem? Assuming ext3, this cannot shrunk without unmounting. I believe the following *should* work for ext3
$ umount /home $ e2fsck -f /dev/vg_web/lv_home $ resize2fs /dev/vg_web/lv_home 150g $ lvresize -L 150g /dev/vg_web/lv_home $ mount /home
I am not sure how safe it is. Take care!
I'd like to add that it's probably good paranoia not to size the lv down too tightly (should it happen to become smaller than the fs then ooops). That is, I'd size the lv down to a comfortable margin above the fs size (and then size the fs up to the device size).
Hmm. I did that too a couple of times in the past. But why? What are the reasons for the paranoia?
I did a little experiment
$ lvcreate -L1g -ntest1 vg00 $ mkfs.ext3 /dev/vg00/test1 ... 131072 inodes, 262144 blocks ... $ lvcreate -L2g -ntest2 vg00 $ mkfs.ext3 /dev/vg00/test2 $ resize2fs /dev/vg00/test2 1g resize2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006) Resizing the filesystem on /dev/vg00/test2 to 262144 (4k) blocks. The filesystem on /dev/vg00/test2 is now 262144 blocks long.
The sizes (262144) match!