From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 341877B7CC for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:12:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 200131AF92 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:11:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.xpecto.de (mx1.xpecto.de [212.102.161.249]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:11:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (mx1.xpecto.de [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.xpecto.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEC2320003 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:04:58 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=xpecto.com; s=20170902; t=1657523098; bh=HPuJKLETPt/qXQfZdTrJonX6gYAaYzcF+RNFknujuVY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=nuaFRyTllm1cEq9F6hZBowEJJ0IzxQCiU+4SDJdW1pZtr+0FSvJX/mo1ejR70l/pG 2ybyuv+W+iCVjvVQjWFFURWqGnXlZsxEDrzYxix2ktpiA5JdKixEyvMzb+7QwinsDL FI0hle6W5kCnlALZFjwATqkNefuZaBGQtrX9qmPr531yPz9JtjO8VeOTCsjEM/nSPB YiDi2X0M72XjxkmDKWFOF539PfWxlYWBHKKlaW3+OvrWeIWOv2SE6rMHrtgIQFn7oY 0OStAMK4JwnGFHrSBWgooh8tg1mjTiOv5SXA/s52MsmZ1TpaO9GVdslTSdG3b439Ys AgV4e5DtB4YOA== X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx1.xpecto.de X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -50.59 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-50.59 tagged_above=-999 required=2 tests=[BAYES_00=-1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, LOCAL_RCVD=-50, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mx1.xpecto.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.xpecto.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X0tZIeqEUqsQ for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:04:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from postman.xpecto.com (postman.xpecto.local [10.208.30.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.xpecto.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:04:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from postman.xpecto.local (10.208.30.11) by postman.xpecto.local (10.208.30.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.28; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:04:55 +0200 Received: from postman.xpecto.local ([fe80::85b3:4abd:5df0:fda8]) by postman.xpecto.local ([fe80::85b3:4abd:5df0:fda8%7]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.028; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:04:55 +0200 From: Christoph Weber To: "'pve-user@lists.proxmox.com'" Thread-Topic: How to be sure if I can safely delete pve/data thin pool LV Thread-Index: AdiU8+pdY6Ee+/DGRhiws8dv/YFJSQ== Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 07:04:54 +0000 Message-ID: <55642ded9dce4e57bd548c73f40c084a@xpecto.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.2.17] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.218 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - T_SPF_PERMERROR 0.01 SPF: test of record failed (permerror) Subject: [PVE-User] How to be sure if I can safely delete pve/data thin pool LV X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 07:12:07 -0000 Hi everybody, I'm need to make the pve/root LV larger on one node, because Ceph complains= during backups that there is low disk space on the disk. I'm pretty sure that I don't use the lvthin pool or that the pve/data LV is= in use, but would like a second opinion, before I destroy it # parted /dev/sda Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 1049kB 2097kB 1049kB bios_grub 2 2097kB 271MB 268MB fat32 boot, esp 3 271MB 120GB 120GB lvm # pvs PV VG Fmt Attr PSize P= Free /dev/sda3 pve lvm2 a-- <111.54g <= 13.88g #vgs VG #PV #LV #SN Attr VSize VFr= ee pve 1 3 0 wz--n- <111.54g <13= .88g #lvs data pve = twi-a-tz-- 59.91g 0.00 1.59 root pve = -wi-ao---- 27.75g swap pve = -wi-ao---- 8.00g /dev/pve lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jul 7 13:26 data -> ../dm-6 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jul 8 11:35 root -> ../dm-2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jul 7 13:26 swap -> ../dm-1 /etc/pve/storage.cfg ( stripped some custom entries made by me) rbd: cephstor_vm content images,rootdir krbd 0 pool cephstor dir: local path /var/lib/vz content rootdir,iso,vztmpl,images prune-backups keep-all=3D1 shared 0 cephfs: cephfs path /mnt/pve/cephfs content iso,backup,vztmpl # mount |grep -i /var/lib/vz # swapon NAME TYPE SIZE USED PRIO /dev/dm-1 partition 8G 3.3M -2 Did I miss something, or is it really safe to destroy pve/data safely?=20 Thanks for your help :-) Christoph