Mark Goodwin wrote:
>
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Lance Reed wrote:
>>> Thanks for the quick response.
>>>
>>> Actually, I was able to run an xfs_repair and all was well.(took 45
>>> minutes...)
>>>
>>> But I would love to be able to expand the XFS file system out to the max.
>>>
>>> I guess I could expand it in < 2TB increments then maybe?
>>>
>>> Thanks for the update and I will look around.
>>>
>>> I did find this which I think is related.
>>>
>>> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-01/msg00097.html
>> Yep, I think expanding it in, say, 1T increments should be fine, and it
>> should all (I think...) end up the same as if you'd done it all at once
>> (modulo the bug, of course...)
>
> I think we verified a while back that growing in 2T increments is an
> effective workaround - the bug is due to a signed 32 bit overflow.
> The fix has been available for some time now, but apparently hasn't
> made it's way into Centos yet.
Honestly, I think nothing makes its way back to Centos... I really don't
have the time to maintain it. If anyone on the list uses Centos + xfs
and wants to backport patches that appear to be bugfixes, I'm sure it'd
be welcomed. I'd be happy to facilitate w/ review or whatnot, but
probably won't have time to actually take on this task myself (despite
being the instigator of the centos module originally, which was, in
retrospect, perhaps a tad irresponsible...) :)
-Eric
|