On Tue, 2013-04-16 at 11:44 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2013-04-16, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Not recently. What version of xfs_repair are you using?
>
> Hmm, perhaps this is a difference. I believe (though, again I did very
> poor logging, and I apologize) that the initial repair used 3.1.1. The
> recent successful repair definitely used 3.1.10. Is it possible 3.1.1
> is old enough that it might not have caught the issues I reported from
> the 3.1.10 log?
>
Yes, we had a system here for which xfs_repair 3.1.6 reported for 30 or
so files:
data fork in regular inode 3238731555 claims used block 1080914355
correcting nblocks for inode 3238731555, was 304 - counted 0
in phase three, and
correcting nblocks for inode 3238731555, was 0 - counted 304
in phase four, so the filesystem ended up back where it started. Version
3.1.8 fixed this, reporting instead e.g.:
data fork in regular inode 3238731617 claims used block 1080933203
correcting nextents for inode 3238731617
correcting nblocks for inode 3238731617, was 304 - counted 0
correcting nextents for inode 3238731617, was 1 - counted 0
>
--
Roger Willcocks <roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|