Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 01:09:46PM -0500, Nate Seif wrote:
> # tune2fs -l /dev/hda4 | grep -e ^Block.count: -e ^Block.size:
> Block count: 26499186
> Block size: 4096
>
btw, for the next one excercising this,
provided that your awk gets the math right,
you can do:
tune2fs -l /dev/whatever |
awk '/^Block.size:/ { bs=$NF }
/^Block.count:/ { bc=$NF }
END { print bc * bs / 1024, "kB" }'
>> or better
>> tune2fs -l /dev/drbd0 |
>> grep -e ^Block.count: -e ^Block.size:
>
> # tune2fs -l /dev/drbd0 | grep -e ^Block.count: -e ^Block.size:
> Block count: 26499186
> Block size: 4096
>
> I see that 26499186 * 4096 = 108540665856 bytes.
> 108540665856 bytes * (1 kilobyte / 1024 bytes) = 105996744 kilobytes.
>
> This appears to be the same size that my kernel sees for hda4, and not
> drbd0:
>
> # grep -e hda4 -e drbd0 /proc/partitions
> 3 4 105996744 hda4
> 147 0 105993472 drbd0
>
>
>
>>> > you again get two numbers, this time unit is kilo byte.
>>> > that is the size of the partitions as the kernel sees them now.
>>> > according to the logs above (the limit= is unit sectors),
>>> > drbd0 will be 105993472 kB.
>>> > I dare say hda4 will be somewhat larger, my best guess, given the
>>> > information I have, is that hda4 will be 105996740 kB.
>>> > and that this also matches what the tune2fs reports.
>
> hda4 is slightly larger than drbd0 according to /proc/partitions AND this
> does match what tune2fs reports. This seems to me to be what we'd expect
> if I had created the filesystem directly on hda4... (Is this how
> everyone else interprets it?) But, I swear when I set up my DRBD cluster
> I created the file system on /dev/drbd0:
>
> # mke2fs -j /dev/drbd0
>
> I am and was very much aware of the fact that I have to deal only with
> /dev/drbd0 and not the underlying partition /dev/hda4. Is it possible
> that mke2fs created the ext3 file system on /dev/hda4 instead of
> /dev/drbd0 as I told it to?
maybe there have been some gui tools involved,
or some re-partition tools (parted and friends),
that decided for themselves that they wanted to "optimize"
your partition/file system layout?
> I imagine I need to get ext3 to see/truncate its FS size to that of
> /dev/drbd0 so that the tune2fs command returns the bytes the kernel sees
> on /dev/drbd0. Is this correct?
suggestion to get out of this:
either do backup / mkfs / restore,
or
umount. drbdadm down all.
force fsck of /real/device (hda4).
now you have again two options:
reconfigure drbd to use external meta data
(you'd need an additional lv or partion for this)
or
resize2fs /real/device $usable_size_of_drbd_with_internal_meta_data
(or even some MB smaller, just to be sure)
drbdadm up
drbdadm primary
drbdadm invalidate-remote
--
: Lars Ellenberg http://www.linbit.com :
: DRBD/HA support and consulting sales at linbit.com :
: LINBIT Information Technologies GmbH Tel +43-1-8178292-0 :
: Vivenotgasse 48, A-1120 Vienna/Europe Fax +43-1-8178292-82 :
__
please use the "List-Reply" function of your email client.