Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
2011/12/12 Christian Völker > > >>>>>> Otherwise I'd expect just to grow the underlying LVM and > >>>>>> then do a "drbadm resize drbd0". Will this do any harm? > >>>> > >>>> yes, I'm afraid so. > >> Is there an explanation why it's not working? Even then when > >> I'll setup the upcoming secondary from scratch? > > > > oh it *does* work, but not while your resource is up. If a downtime > > is acceptable, then there's no problem. > > Well, it doesn't. Put the device down (umount of FS done before, of > course) with "drbdadm down drbd0". Did a "drbdadm resize drbd0" which > ended in: > drbdadm resize drbd0 > 0: Failure: (138) Device does not have a disk-config > If you extended the LV, then referring to an old post where Lars answered (that day it was for an hw raid expansion) I think it applies for you too: " well. I guess you used internal meta data. if the RAID got it right, then all the old data is still there, lying at "the end" of the previous device, so somewhere at 220G. drbd only looks for its meta data at the end of the device, so at offset ~400G currently. there is nothing but nonsense there. you have to create new drbd meta-data then, as if you'd set it up for the first time. " Please note also in the page you referred http://www.drbd.org/users-guide/s-resizing.html the differences of caveats if resize is performed on-line or off-line..... HIH, Gianluca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linbit.com/pipermail/drbd-user/attachments/20111212/c37a7d47/attachment.htm>