xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: regarding the inode64 mount option

To: Michael Weissenbacher <mw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: regarding the inode64 mount option
From: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 08:24:47 -0500
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4A24FEF9.6050309@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4A1E81D8.7010706@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090528145612.GA14684@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A1EAB31.7090604@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4A24FEF9.6050309@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Jun 2, 2009, at 5:29 AM, Michael Weissenbacher wrote:

Hi Eric + Christoph!
http://sandeen.net/wordpress/?p=9
This is a scary list indeed! Does this apply only to Fedora on i686 or also to x86_64?

In general, does the inode64 option make sense at all on a partition that is <1TB in size?

inode64 doesn't do anything on a partition smaller than 1TB.

Actually they should still be accessible, we just won't create new
inodes not addressable by 32bit inode numbers.
Well, in my tests it didn't work.

Indeed. (I thought I already replied stating this, but found my
mail in Drafts folder).

What you're seeing is expected result, which was observed in our
environment as well.

[snip]

The filesystem is consistent - xfs_check (3.0.1) doesn't report any problems.

Right, filesystem is still consistent.
And xfs_check/xfs_repair has no idea that filesystem may be mounted
without the inode64.

Felix

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