| To: | Ludek Finstrle <ludek.finstrle@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: ls -l versus du -sk after xfs_fsr |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:59:55 -0500 |
| Cc: | Mathieu Betrancourt <mbetrancourt@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20051004190338.GA15263@soptik.pzkagis.cz> |
| References: | <20050926071451.GA3751@soptik.pzkagis.cz> <4338128F.8000707@sgi.com> <20050927163531.GA19652@soptik.pzkagis.cz> <433976C5.1000104@sgi.com> <20050929054410.GA30789@soptik.pzkagis.cz> <20051001091130.GA15808@soptik.pzkagis.cz> <434174A7.6010904@sgi.com> <26743c10510031244x726ff508m89ecd0398417e521@mail.gmail.com> <4341E780.70803@sgi.com> <20051004190338.GA15263@soptik.pzkagis.cz> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) |
Ludek Finstrle wrote:
I don't know which files will be problematic after xfs_fsr.
If you guys don't mind collecting a bit more information, you could run xfs_repair (with or without -n; -n is probably fine - save the output) before you run xfs_fsr, to see if the filesystem has problems prior to running fsr. In that case, xfs_fsr may be the victim here... running repair requires taking the fs offline though, so perhaps that's not an easy option. Thanks, -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: ls -l versus du -sk after xfs_fsr, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE 943123 - dquot hash, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: ls -l versus du -sk after xfs_fsr, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: grub disaster with FC4 & XFS, George N. White III |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |