[Top] [All Lists]

Re: inode64 readiness testing

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: inode64 readiness testing
From: Peter Kimball <peterakimball@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:46:04 -0500
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1321908365; bh=Rp4XXYKSPJAIougahoogB8gaql+qd9O7QGiddKLYd20=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer; b=yixXCrlWQXCxcoUHnmEdsbko12FBwoZksBbP2SuzXkBkggdRHPN9Flp8cEskajrjLznK7HvmHtk5CfKBgLOek/YjM3W+VWt7zb0uvXmLeKLswihS19VtVb40lb2VZ2pYDA9VwoDuQqqt68hpQ2M3b25jwLeRsDOZ/qUoD8ATmyU=
In-reply-to: <20111120191050.GB11957@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <501A7AEB-6708-4181-AAE2-D145DC23B938@xxxxxxxxx> <20111120191050.GB11957@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Nov 20, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:33:16PM -0500, Peter Kimball wrote:
>> 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 600MB.
>> 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.
> You will never not see 64-bit inodes on a filesystem that small ever.
> Try to create a (sparse) 10TB loop image, and create some deep
> directories in it.  This should create some larger inodes number for
> you if you had it mounted with the inode64 flag.  You can verify that
> by checking that the inode number returned from the stat systsem call
> or from ls -i is larger than 32 bits.

Thank you for that guide, Christoph.  I followed your directions and the 
directory tree I created included some >32-bit inode numbers so I was able to 
successfully test all of our NFS clients.

From what I'd read, I thought that the ino64 mount option would do the work for 
me (bring 32-bit inode numbers into 64-bit range), apparently that is not the 
case.  This method worked great, hopefully the next person to search can find 
this happy thread.

Many thanks,
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>