----- "Ben M." centos@rivint.com wrote:
What a mess that turned out to be. Hey, maybe it was your "awesome numbering" <ducking and running>. jk, probably because I forgot to take some meds today or something.
Measure twice. Cut once. :)
Oh, the dd quit on me before complete. Is it okay making the target lv bigger than the source when I try it again or does it have to be exact? I need some extra disk space in that xen vm too.
You can make it larger if you want. The partition table copied from the source will only have the original size allocated. Did you allocate the new LV with the same number of extents on a VG with the same extent size? It should work perfectly, if so.
Did you allocate the new LV with the same number of extents on a VG
with the same extent size? It should work perfectly, if so.
Ah, no, the target VG was a bit larger.
Will try that next. I'm toasted for the evening, time to back off. Been sweating the client's delivery of their project beta, but that is at least 6 months behind schedule ... just don't want to be a part of their cluster %^$#^, I have my own to worry about.
Thanks, will pick up tomorrow after I get some billing time in.
Christopher G. Stach II wrote:
----- "Ben M." centos@rivint.com wrote:
What a mess that turned out to be. Hey, maybe it was your "awesome numbering" <ducking and running>. jk, probably because I forgot to take some meds today or something.
Measure twice. Cut once. :)
Oh, the dd quit on me before complete. Is it okay making the target lv bigger than the source when I try it again or does it have to be exact? I need some extra disk space in that xen vm too.
You can make it larger if you want. The partition table copied from the source will only have the original size allocated. Did you allocate the new LV with the same number of extents on a VG with the same extent size? It should work perfectly, if so.
-
Ben M. -
Christopher G. Stach II