xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Problem with mkfs.xfs on a regular file

To: Phil White <cerise-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Problem with mkfs.xfs on a regular file
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:47:57 +1100
Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>, Phil White <cerise-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131127024119.GD13101@boogeyman>
References: <20131127023119.GB13101@boogeyman> <1428728255.17190956.1385519900454.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <20131127024119.GD13101@boogeyman>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 06:41:19PM -0800, Phil White wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 09:38:20PM -0500, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > ...
> > > It's trying to read/write 512 bytes at the beginning of the file which 
> > > seems
> > > reasonably innocuous.  I double checked the man page which says that under
> > > 2.6, O_DIRECT writes can be aligned to 512 bytes without a problem.  sbp
> > > comes
> > > out with 4096 in blocksize and 512 in sectsize when 
> > > zero_old_xfs_structures()
> > > is called and the first error comes up, so I'm at a loss for what's going
> > > wrong.
> > 
> > The filesystem backing the new /root/image file doesn't support direct I/O?
> > 
> > cheers.
> 
> The filesystem backing /root/image is xfs.  Good guess though.
> 
> For the record:
> caliban mnt # xfs_info /
> meta-data=/dev/root              isize=256    agcount=4, agsize=25685952 blks
>          =                       sectsz=4096  attr=2
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^
Yup, there's your problem.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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