xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs file system in process of becoming corrupt; though xfs_repair th

To: Michael Weissenbacher <mw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs file system in process of becoming corrupt; though xfs_repair thinks it's fine! ;-/ (was xfs_dump problem...)
From: "Linda A. Walsh" <xfs@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:42:02 -0700
In-reply-to: <4C2A87FF.7090804@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4C26A51F.8020909@xxxxxxxxx> <20100628022744.GX6590@dastard> <4C2A749E.4060006@xxxxxxxxx> <20100629232532.GA24712@dastard> <4C2A87FF.7090804@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666


Michael Weissenbacher wrote:
Hi!
2359101 ?????????? ? ? ? ?                ? 30-Omoide to Yakusoku (TV 
saizu|Reinaʼs Ver.).mp3
2354946 ?????????? ? ? ? ?                ? 31-Omoide to Yakusoku (TV 
saizu|Tomoeʼs Ver.).mp3
2354949 ?????????? ? ? ? ?                ? 32-Omoide to Yakusoku (TV 
saizu|Nanualʼs Ver.).mp3
ls: cannot access bad2/30-Omoide to Yakusoku (TV saizu|Reinaʼs Ver.).mp3: No 
such file or directory
ls: cannot access bad2/31-Omoide to Yakusoku (TV saizu|Tomoeʼs Ver.).mp3: No 
such file or directory
ls: cannot access bad2/32-Omoide to Yakusoku (TV saizu|Nanualʼs Ver.).mp3: No 
such file or directory
...

If there are no problems reported by repair, then I suspect that
it's a terminal level problem...

Looking at this i remember having similar problems when my filesystems
was mounted with inode64 before and after i left out that parameter. So
Linda, could you re-try mounting the fs with "inode64".
----
        I ran into that before as well -- already tried

Notice the listing you see is the output of "ls -in".
Those numbers are the inodes.  ...HEY, wait.
When do you need 64-bit inodes?  The dump size said it was:
xfsdump: estimated dump size: 2360915740992 bytes

It's getting right near to overflowing a 32-bit integer.

Do I need >32 bit inodes if the filesystem size is > 2T?

I'm guessing the file system just recently passed the 2G mark.
Note -- I DID try the inode64 mount option -- it made no difference.


But if you need 64-bit inodes for file systems > 2T file systems,
then shouldn't I have gotten some error rather than it eating files
for lunch?

The inode numbers themselves, are not even close to being over 32bits.
Sigh...


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