http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980065 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980065#c12 Stefan Hundhammer changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #12 from Stefan Hundhammer --- So, this is an unsupported scenario, and AFAIK it's not trivial to support this with the old libstorage. The upcoming libstorage-ng might support this on the long run, but we have a lot of other things to get in there first. In the meantime, we can only advise you to use LVM as an intermediate step for such a scenario; or use a larger partition for Btrfs in the first place. You might have to reshuffle things a bit, but this is nothing that can't be done with booting from a USB stick with a live file system on it and copying around files for a while; I'd copy the files from that Btrfs on /dev/sda2 and /dev/sda4 (both on the SSD) to free space on /dev/sdb? (or use a USB disk if there is not enough free space on any /dev/sb? partition), /home on /dev/sda3 to another directory, then repartition the SSD (/dev/sda) to have it less fragmented, then copy things back. When you do that manually, you can even keep the old UUD (c5a20327-9e28-48d5-8321-96a35f02df84) of that Btrfs; mkfs.btrfs has a --uuid command line option for that case. Sorry that there is no simple, automated solution to this, but AFAICS this is the best we can do for now. Bottom line: Unsupported scenario, so it's a mixture of INVALID and WONTFIX. But there is a feasible manual solution (see above). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.