I just added a new disk to my PC. As a result, I'm trying to enlarge an ext2 fs on a lv. I had added the new pv to the vg and then I extended the lv. Now I have a lv that is about 380 Gigs with a filesystem that is about 200Gigs. Here is what I typed in and here is what happend.

spot:/# resize2fs -p -f /dev/mythdisk/tvshows
resize2fs 1.35 (28-Feb-2004)
Resizing the filesystem on /dev/mythdisk/tvshows to 96436224 (4k) blocks.
Begin pass 1 (max = 1452)
Extending the inode table XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Killed

Any clues?

Why did you use the -f option? Is there a specific reason to override the filesystem's checks? Have you tried it without this option and seen if it reports any problems?

Cheers,

Steve

I used the -f option since I didn't want it to harass me about using fsck. What's interesting is that it doesn't kill over if I resize it up to 271G. The LV is, however, 361.88G. I have tried it without the -f option and the behavior is the same. Anyway, is there a size limit on ext2 fs or is there something wrong?

I've got to say I don't know if there is a size limit on ext2 partitions, I strongly suspect there is, but I don't know.

However, a little maths reveals another possible problem:

You've just said the lv is 361.88G, but the size mentioned before
works out to 367.875G - larger than the partition size.

What happens if you specifiy a size of, say, 365G ?

Cheers,

Steve

Ooops I meant to say that it had 367.88. Here's the exact info below. I was able to tell it to go 271G, but if I try 272 or higher it crashes.


--- Logical volume ---
LV Name /dev/mythdisk/tvshows
VG Name mythdisk
LV UUID ap7Flw-T8oA-oS1d-0xb4-ENq8-MMSc-MG9ID6
LV Write Access read/write
LV Status available
# open 1
LV Size 367.88 GB
Current LE 23544
Segments 2
Allocation inherit
Read ahead sectors 0
Block device 254:0

I figured out what my problem was. When I repartitioned everything to put LVM on my system, I moved my swap space from hda5 to hda2. As a result, it was unable to activate the swap partition and thus would run out of memory. The system itself was killing the process so that it wouldn't run out of memory. I just wish that it would have given me a better clue.

Cool, glad you sorted it out!

There definitely wasn't much of a clue to the problem in the error message though! Nothing in syslog or messages either?

Cheers,

Steve