From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E00A22DF73 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 22:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Gdhe+KDj" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1704405614; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4VrN/h+Wh3TkHHYsnoOMt0Y/2DpsH8Aw84IxTOG9hjI=; b=Gdhe+KDjAM8K1JVCP1xuqL/rxtRw8Eghug/7Y+SBNIbd4LWLaSjaIxJldHnmySlFUIJx9o yRR9s/enyfNgsW3CawboenM0zNmqiypUq8rqZVFBZdpOSO0U29hUV0J8a6iyv0eQxrudRf udVzwiWIceUVRkNrElDNgvj+fLpgxRw= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-6-x1GiVsivMTOWL7cNtgepVA-1; Thu, 04 Jan 2024 17:00:10 -0500 X-MC-Unique: x1GiVsivMTOWL7cNtgepVA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1525E3C23FCE; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 22:00:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.22.18.13]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7B5E2026D66; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 22:00:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 16:00:08 -0600 From: David Teigland To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Xavier?= Payet Cc: linux-lvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: Unable to resize a logical volume due to wrong reported asked size Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-lvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.4 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 10:01:04PM +0100, François-Xavier Payet wrote: > Hello! > > I’ve got issues resizing a LVM volume. Hi, I suspect you're missing this fix: https://gitlab.com/lvmteam/lvm2/-/commit/fa496513010976aac21584b5081529b76462f9a9 To work around the problem, you can disable the fs checking in lvresize with '--fs ignore', which tells lvresize that you have already properly resized the fs. Dave > I’ve allready resized the filesystem on top of it without issues : > btrfs fi resize 62T /mnt/user > Resize device id 1 (/dev/mapper/vg_raid-datas) from 80.04TiB to 62.00TiB > > But when trying to resize the underlying volume, I’ve got the following error : > lvresize -L63T /dev/vg_raid/datas > File system btrfs found on vg_raid/datas. > File system size (62,00 TiB) is larger than the requested size (1,00 TiB). > File system reduce is required and not supported (btrfs). > > Which makes (to me) no sense as 1. the FS is less than 63T, 2. The 1.00 TB is not what I’ve requested. And If I try another size, it tells me that I’ve asked for a null size : > lvresize -L64T /dev/vg_raid/datas > File system btrfs found on vg_raid/datas. > File system size (62,00 TiB) is larger than the requested size (0 ). > File system reduce is required and not supported (btrfs). > > So I really don’t get what’s going on here. Anyone has pointer on what might be the problem? > > Thanks!