[Top] [All Lists]

inode64 readiness testing

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: inode64 readiness testing
From: Peter Kimball <peterakimball@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:33:16 -0500
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1321637599; bh=Kn12mtHbPsG95o4qFWvi8Pv8/GJO/ttydCRPWpFIqCc=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:From:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Subject:Date:Message-Id:To:Mime-Version:X-Mailer; b=Z41CuIAd8oFicn8UTi8Z2W5We0c34of8Up0lJe95RATx6JR9u3Li5SMOgUxQpNFfGpHjdmnah3uPgV79+hCFny5wJBo/zv+SV+dOzbei9+DznMVgGgECqoC0dCFOV9M4F062XsBXYv4JAc6zZ46v5aIgiKFQxUuqD5S7J+pc0IY=
Hi folks,

We've got some large XFS volumes that should probably be using the inode64 
mount option, but aren't yet.  Before I go making irrevocable changes, I wanted 
to run my testing procedure by you to make sure I've actually tested what I 
think I tested.  These volumes will be shared via NFS, which is not your 
problem but seems to be a troublemaker.

I created a blank 1GB disk image, created an XFS filesystem on that image, and 
mounted it on a loopback device using the ino64 flag.  

I wrote a bunch of data to the filesystem (lots of small files), approximately 

At this point, I think I have a filesystem in which inodes use 64-bit 
addresses, even if the actual address value would fit in 32 bits.  I would 
expect any program that can't handle 64-bit addresses to barf when trying to 
access any data on the filesystem.

I then unmounted the filesystem and re-mounted it using the inode64 flag, just 
like it would be mounted in production.

I then verified that the programs I cared about (mostly NFS clients) could read 
all of the data I had written.  I also made sure they could write to the 

Since I haven't seen any read/write failures at this point, I feel I'm ready to 
sign off that we're ready to start using the inode64 flag.  Did I properly 
create files using 64-bit inodes?  Did I read from the filesystem in such a way 
that I would know if my readers were unable to handle 64-bit inodes?  Is there 
anything I should test that I haven't?

Thanks for all your hard work on this most useful project!

ps: not sure it makes a difference, this is on Centos 5.3 (2.6.18-128.el5), so 
I'm not entirely certain which XFS bugs/features have been folded in by the 

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