[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       tru64-unix-managers
Subject:    SUMMARY: Shrinking a file system
From:       rob.leadbeater () lynx ! co ! uk
Date:       2005-01-21 16:46:51
Message-ID: T6ea29406080a0a1e033c4 () mailsrv03 ! lynx ! co ! uk
[Download RAW message or body]


Hi,

Thanks to Charles Ballowe, Tom Blinn, and Douglas Thomas.

The concensus is that this wouldn't work. The sensible thing to do would be to create \
a new 50GB volume on the SAN, addvol it to the existing domain and then rmvol the \
original 200GB disk. (which requires the Advfs utilities license).

Unfortunately for me I'm pretty much at capacity on the EVA, so it looks like I'm \
probably going to have to revert to plan B - vdump, delete 200GB vdisk, create 50GB, \
vrestore...

Cheers,

Rob

P.S. Thanks also to Dave Holland who just said the same thing !


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tru64-unix-managers-owner@ornl.gov 
> [mailto:tru64-unix-managers-owner@ornl.gov] On Behalf Of 
> rob.leadbeater@lynx.co.uk
> Sent: 21 January 2005 15:55
> To: tru64-unix-managers@ornl.gov
> Subject: Shrinking a file system
> 
> 
> 
> Hi managers,
> 
> Similar to the post the other day about extending file 
> systems, has anybody seen any "gotchas" with shrinking advfs 
> file systems ?
> 
> I've got a volume which is 200GB in size that I need to 
> reduce in size. It currently only has 25GB used.
> What I'm thinking of doing is reducing the size of the Vdisk 
> on our EVA5000, from 200GB down to 50GB.
> 
> If I:
> 
> 1. umount /mountpoint
> 2. Resize the vdisk.
> 3. disklabel -rw dskN
> 4. mount -o domain#fileset /mountpoint
> 
> Would this work... ?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) 
> ("The intended
> Recipient(s)") to whom it is addressed.  It may contain 
> information which
> is privileged and confidential within the meaning of 
> applicable law.  If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender 
> as soon as
> possible.  The views expressed in this communication are not 
> necessarily
> those held by LYNX Express Limited.
> 
> 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]