[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_repair problem.

To: David Bernick <dbernick@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs_repair problem.
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:01:31 -0600
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <7bcfcfff0812210852v6c1cd522i334de914e1e9a112@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <7bcfcfff0812210703r4bd889cave8e2d60c56587e3e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <494E66D9.5030704@xxxxxxxxxxx> <7bcfcfff0812210852v6c1cd522i334de914e1e9a112@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20081105)
David Bernick wrote:
> Thanks for the help so far:
> It my output was from "sb 0". Thanks for reminding me to be explicit.
> The system is a 64-bit system with 32-GB of RAM. It's going through the
> FS right now with XFS repair.
> Output of xfs_repair says, "arno=3" and about 81.6% of RAM is used by
> the process. Think 32 G will be enough to handle this task?
> I actually don't KNOW the original error, unfortunately, when growing. I
> came into this late.
> We're using repair 2.9.4. Worth getting a more recent version?

2.9.8 had some memory usage improvements (reductions) for repair IIRC

> Kernel is - 2.6.18-92.1.1.el5

heh; RHEL5 does not support xfs ;)

You probably hit:

TAKE 959978 - growing an XFS filesystem by more than 2TB is broken

I'd see if you can get centos to backport that fix (I assume you're
using centos or at least their kernel module; if not you can backport it

> I "backed off" by vgsplit-ing the new physical device from the original
> vgroup, so I was left with my original partition. I am hoping to mount
> the original device since the "expanded" fs didn't work. I am hoping
> xfs_repair helps that.

well, you don't want to take out part of the device if the fs thinks it
owns it now, but from the db output I think you still have the smaller size.

I'd read through:


and see if it helps you recover.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>