Size Problem

Felipe Figueiredo philsf79 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 16:14:00 BST 2008


On Thursday 12 June 2008 11:15:26 Derek Broughton wrote:
> Felipe Figueiredo wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 June 2008 21:31:59 Karl Larsen wrote:
> >>     I have a real problem with /dev/sda5. I put the /karl directories on
> >> it and got a 100% full warning. But for gods sake I had doubled the size
> >> with fdisk and saved it. Here is what df says:
> >> /dev/sda5              8657308   8216216      1316 100% /mnt
> >>
> >> But here is what I did with fdisk and mkfs.ext3 earlier today:
> >>
> >> /dev/sda5            2193        4625    19543041   83  Linux
> >>
> >> according to fdisk.
> >>
> >> Which of these is correct?
> >
> > Both of them.
> >
> > One is reporting the partition size, and the other is reporting the
> > filesystem size. Fdisk doesn't mess with filesystems, which is why it's
> > not recommended for those who don't know exactly what they're doing. You
> > could avoid this by using parted, or something higher level like that.
> >
> > You need to resize the filesystem to match the new partition size.
> >  man resize2fs is your friend.
>
> While you're right about the partition size, I don't think parted would do
> any better job.  

Maybe I'm assuming too much here, but I really thought it did the whole thing. 
Isn't parted the partitioner used in the graphical installer?


> However, Karl says he used mkfs - so it really should be 
> using the whole partition.

I'd think so, too. But in light of what he said, it would also make sense that 
mkfs would just reformat the existing filesystem, instead of creating a whole 
new one. I don't have the time to experiment and try to find out why this 
happened to him, but his solution is a fair and simple resize.

Mea culpa, as per P.Garret's and K.Auer's recent emails (both of which I agree 
to) I should've stated that I *thought* parted would prevent it, instead.

regards
FF




More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list