Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 2008 December 21 15:00:44 Alex Samad wrote:On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote:Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" <cajun@cajuninc.com> wrote about 'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':Maybe what I should do is break the array and start over? Maybe that is a more drastic action than is needed though.Yep. You just need to resize your filesystem to the correct size, as reported by the /dev/md0 device and suggested by my earlier email.So all I need to do is 'resize2fs /dev/md0 244189984'. Then e2fsck should run with no errors.I would suggest maybe a resize2fs /dev/md0 and see what that does first? The other question to ask is how it ended up like this.Probably by imaging and deploying the fs with dd. Either that or some ill-informed forcing of the filesystem to the larger size.I really don't think there's anything wrong with the drives or the md device.
I wondered myself how it got that way to start with. The drives in question are ~ 2 months old. I can safely say that 'dd' has never been used on them. LVM is not installed on them.
I know at one point, the mirror was broken and reassembled, but I wouldn't think that would have caused the issue. Maybe so.
-- Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle. 01:40:01 up 5 days, 1:17, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.04, 0.02 Linux Registered User #241685 http://counter.li.org