On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Peter Becker wrote:
> 2016-05-29 19:11 GMT+02:00 Chris Murphy :
>> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Peter Becker wrote:
>>> Thanks for the clarification. I've probably overlooked this.
>>>
>>> But should "resize max" does not do what you expect instead of falling
2016-05-29 19:11 GMT+02:00 Chris Murphy :
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Peter Becker wrote:
>> Thanks for the clarification. I've probably overlooked this.
>>
>> But should "resize max" does not do what you expect instead of falling
>> back on an "invisible" 1?
>
> How does it know what the u
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Peter Becker wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. I've probably overlooked this.
>
> But should "resize max" does not do what you expect instead of falling
> back on an "invisible" 1?
How does it know what the user expects?
I think the issue is not with the res
Thanks for the clarification. I've probably overlooked this.
But should "resize max" does not do what you expect instead of falling
back on an "invisible" 1?
2016-05-28 22:52 GMT+02:00 Alexander Fougner :
> 2016-05-28 22:32 GMT+02:00 Peter Becker :
>> Hello, i have found a small issue but i does
2016-05-28 22:32 GMT+02:00 Peter Becker :
> Hello, i have found a small issue but i doesn't know if this is intended.
>
> Starting with a RAID 1 setup with 3 x 4GB devices.
> If you replace one of this devices with a 2GB device and run "resize
> max" nothing happens.
>From manpages:
"The devid can
Hello, i have found a small issue but i doesn't know if this is intended.
Starting with a RAID 1 setup with 3 x 4GB devices.
If you replace one of this devices with a 2GB device and run "resize
max" nothing happens.
Only if you resize with the device-ID the additional GB will be usable.
Loop at th
