From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.7]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4JHoZXP018585 for ; Wed, 19 May 2010 13:50:36 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com (mail-wy0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4JHoP2h003710 for ; Wed, 19 May 2010 13:50:25 -0400 Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so672842wyg.33 for ; Wed, 19 May 2010 10:50:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <05d201caf776$17abb110$47031330$@com> References: <059801caf769$fc848350$f58d89f0$@com> <4BF40A8B.2000201@alteeve.com> <20100519162601.GA18162@us.ibm.com> <05c901caf771$a3161920$e9424b60$@com> <4BF41884.4080000@alteeve.com> <05d201caf776$17abb110$47031330$@com> Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 12:28:43 -0500 Message-ID: From: Richard Shaw Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Adding a disk to expand an existing logical volume 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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: LVM general discussion and development On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM, kevin wrote: > One last thing I want to confirm is the lvextend command to 'grow' the > logical volume : > > > lvextend -L+144G /dev/VolGroup00/my_volume > > After all said steps in previous messages on this thread are complete, is > the above command correct for my particular scenario? Do I want to 'extend' > the volume size or 'grow' it? > > Not sure what the difference is. Chiming in a little late here but I would suggest the following (although I'm certainly not a LVM expert): lvextend -l +100%FREE /dev/VolGroup00/my_volume (notice the lower case l in -l, not upper) This should make sure you add 100% of the extents of the new drive to your logical volume. As I've said, I'm not an expert so I don't know the innards of "lvextend" but I would be concerned that if you specify the size of the expansion in gigabytes instead of as a percentage that you might get some unallocated extents due to rounding. Richard