From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: 64bit + resize2fs... this is Not Good. Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:04:50 -0500 Message-ID: <20121114210450.GC23511@thunk.org> References: <20121114054347.GA20380@thunk.org> <20121114072021.28351.qmail@science.horizon.com> <20121114203942.GA23511@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: George Spelvin Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:32897 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754505Ab2KNVEx (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:04:53 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121114203942.GA23511@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:39:42PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > The reason why you lost so badly when you did an off-line resize was > because you explicitly changed the resize limit default, via the -E > resize=NNN option. (Can you explain to me your thinking about why you > specified this, just out of curiosity?) Normally the default is 1000 > times the size of the original file system, or for a file system > larger than 1.6TB, enough so that the file system can be resized to > the maximum amount that can be supported via the resize_inode scheme, > which is 16TB. Correction: for any file system larger than 16GB.... - Ted