Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On 31/07/14 04:50 AM, Felix Frank wrote: > On 07/31/2014 12:49 AM, Digimer wrote: >> >> However, it lists in the docs that the "FS" needs to support this, and >> well, DRBD is not an FS. > > Weird. > > FWIW, I read that as "do this only if the data on the partition cares > not about absolute positions of its blocks on the device", i.e. relative > addressing in the filesystem. > > (So XFS would break if I tried that? Sounds specious. Perhaps the > document refers to moving data while it's mounted?) > > Either way, you can likely apply the documentation to the *content* of > the DRBDs, as though that additional block layer weren't present. > > A shame that you gain only 300G, otherwise I'd advise to take this > chance to move to LVM ;-) > > Regards, > Felix I use clustered LVM with DRBD as the PVs. When I tried to use LVM under DRBD as well, it got complicated. To be honest, I've never needed to do this in production, but I wanted to document the process in case it is ever needed. So I suppose, if no one knows for sure, I can try moving the partition and see what happens. It's a test/dev machine so the data on it is disposable (just clvmd + gfs2 + a pair of test VMs). Can I assume that you don't think DRBD will care about absolute positions? -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education?