xfs
[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 2.0.0.18 (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
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-01/msg00053.html

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
yourself...)

> 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:

http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-01/msg00085.html

and see if it helps you recover.

-Eric

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