From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9DHkZqg005135 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:46:35 -0400 Received: from mta4.adelphia.net (mta4.adelphia.net [68.168.78.184]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k9DHkOJx014012 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:46:25 -0400 Received: from mail.waldo.home ([69.175.168.186]) by mta11.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20061013174608.KSPJ2152.mta11.adelphia.net@mail.waldo.home> for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:46:08 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mail.waldo.home [10.0.0.4]) by mail.waldo.home (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075F9EBC2C for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:46:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <452FD0DC.5030904@waldoware.com> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:46:04 -0400 From: Paul Waldo MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Unable to add new drive to LV References: <200610130827.42040.pwaldo@waldoware.com> <452FB129.7020208@gmx.net> <452FBCAA.4080000@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <452FBCAA.4080000@redhat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development Bryn M. Reeves wrote: [snip] > > The problem here is that the LV is using striped allocation across 3 PVs: [snip] > > So, in order to extend it and maintain that allocation, you need to have > 3 PVs with sufficient space to allocate three parallel stripes. > > Cheers, > > Bryn. Thanks for the reply, Bryn. OK, I'm confused. The LVM Howto says "In LVM 2, striped LVs can be extended by concatenating another set of devices onto the end of the first set. So you can get into a situation where your LV is a 2 stripe set concatenated with a linear set concatenated with a 4 stripe set. Are you confused yet?" I interpret the above to mean that I can concatenate the single drive after the existing stripped array. Is that an incorrect interpretation? Being as this LV stores backups, I don't really care too much that it is stripped--my goal is to have lots of disk space. Is my only option trashing the existing LV and making it contiguous (non-stripped)? Thanks! Paul