| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS 1.2Pre and nfs problem |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 17 Oct 2002 07:33:16 +1000 |
| Cc: | ?eref Tufan ?en <tufan@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1034779623.15573.0.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com>; from sandeen@sgi.com on Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:46:58AM -0500 |
| References: | <20021011124432.253ca55a.tufan@itu.edu.tr> <1034352726.1162.7.camel@rose.americas.sgi.com> <20021012140349.3c28bcc9.tufan@itu.edu.tr> <20021016115430.724d3b18.tufan@itu.edu.tr> <1034779623.15573.0.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:46:58AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Did this generate any errors in your system logs? > 990 (EFSCORRUPTED) can be generated by xfs_repair itself (via libxfs). Its not supposed to happen, but it can. :( Running ltrace on xfs_repair would help to find the offending routine in libxfs. > > > > Phase 7 - verify and correct link counts... > > > > fatal error -- couldn't map inode 68355923, err = 990 > > cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: to compare journalised file systems, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: to compare journalised file systems, TJ Easter |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS 1.2Pre and nfs problem, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS 1.2Pre and nfs problem, Þeref Tufan Þen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |