xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ls -l versus du -sk after xfs_fsr

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050926071451.GA3751@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4338128F.8000707@xxxxxxx> <20050927163531.GA19652@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <433976C5.1000104@xxxxxxx> <20050929054410.GA30789@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20051001091130.GA15808@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <434174A7.6010904@xxxxxxx> <26743c10510031244x726ff508m89ecd0398417e521@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4341E780.70803@xxxxxxx> <20051004190338.GA15263@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.

I'm sorry, I don't have enough time till Friday. Then I'll try to play
with the problem.

one other thing that might be interesting.

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>