From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Louis-David Mitterrand Subject: Re: very degraded RAID5, or increasing capacity by adding discs Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:03:01 +0200 Message-ID: <20071022090300.GA22588@apartia.fr> References: <20071008211313.6cd8bbb5@absurd> <470AB496.5010406@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <18186.62585.7261.178442@notabene.brown> <470B4E82.6010102@msgid.tls.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <470B4E82.6010102@msgid.tls.msk.ru> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 01:48:50PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > > There still is - at least for ext[23]. Even offline resizers > can't do resizes from any to any size, extfs developers recommend > to recreate filesystem anyway if size changes significantly. > I'm too lazy to find a reference now, it has been mentioned here > on linux-raid at least this year. It's sorta like fat (yea, that > ms-dog filesystem) - when you resize it from, say, 501Mb to 999Mb, > everything is ok, but if you want to go from 501Mb to 1Gb+1, you > have to recreate almost all data structures because sizes of > all internal fields changes - and here it's much safer to just > re-create it from scratch than trying to modify it in place. > Sure it's much better for extfs, but the point is still the same. I'll just mention that I once resized a multi-Tera ext3 filesystem and it took 8hours +, a comparable XFS online resize lasted all of 10 seconds!