On 7/7/11 1:25 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
> Hi all,
> First, I hope that this message fixes my mail client breaking threading.
> I am sorry for following up my own post (again), but I realized this
> morning that there may be another possible risk I had not considered:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 03:51:32PM -0700, kkeller@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> So, here is my xfs_db output. This is still on a mounted filesystem.
> How safe/risky is it to leave this filesystem mounted and in use?
> I'm not too concerned about new data, since it won't be a huge amount,
> but I am wondering if data that's already been written may be at risk.
> Or, it it a reasonable guess that the kernel is still working completely
> with the old filesystem geometry, and so won't write anything beyond the
> old limits while it's still mounted? df certainly seems to use the old
> fs size, not the new one.
I don't remember all the implications of this very old bug...
It seems like you need an "exit strategy" - you probably cannot leave
your fs mounted -forever- ...
If it were me, if possible, I'd make backups of the fs as it's mounted
now, then umount it and make an xfs_metadump of it, restore that metadump
to a new sparse file, and point xfs_repair at that metadata image file,
to see what repair might do with it.
If repair eats it alive, then we can look into more xfs_db type surgery
to fix things up more nicely...
> Thanks again,