[Top] [All Lists]

Re: inode64 readiness testing

To: Peter Kimball <peterakimball@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: inode64 readiness testing
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:38:13 -0600
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <501A7AEB-6708-4181-AAE2-D145DC23B938@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <501A7AEB-6708-4181-AAE2-D145DC23B938@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
On 11/18/11 11:33 AM, Peter Kimball wrote:
> 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 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.
> 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 filesystem.
> 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?

You might also take a look at the script at http://sandeen.net/wordpress/?p=9,
which can look at binaries and check them for 32-bit stat() syscalls.


> Thanks for all your hard work on this most useful project! Peter
> 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 maintainers...
> _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list 
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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