xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Slightly Urgent: XFS No Space Left On Device

To: Dave Hall <kdhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Slightly Urgent: XFS No Space Left On Device
From: Grozdan <neutrino8@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 16:36:58 +0200
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xfs <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=fNgRH7MYDfSOftOAtk8K5UMAPbrDgmMzZeHcXReWDiA=; b=p2XnC3sJo3oSPr2/OcDeyeuOAnLJv4mkyB9K1SNBzvLj2/r8KuaGBsN5nCCcpW9tmT cu3y2Dj8CZGmrvHyKJjVzf8tQLonsQ4BEi5ohJspt7xJ5V7zVl7tXC3LKFZtxbVWwKDZ HIodsv2uG8ejzD0kweIpOfXpGPWEUJaZlir9d/UmDyT2X59eca/pJvgNFfUXJ+iGz+BM s8Fpermfbb+mxgZ+HAHffUcvpJecb10TwmP7D6Un+4ADyhb43oOwNGnGvJxBP0ytI/3U 6k9v3v0xVKWmceSuAEQLx+c9LsskBQ/+y+DNO1dwoxQ04dzuqXJigVz74KSdUEmBpOR6 HcdQ==
In-reply-to: <551D5316.8050201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <551993CF.4060908@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150330194510.GD28621@dastard> <551C4CB8.7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150402001235.GI28621@dastard> <551D5316.8050201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Dave Hall <kdhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for the help.  Rookie error.  I didn't set these mount options, but I
> see that this option is set for all of the other XFS volumes I have.
>
> I am wondering why XFS would default this way though.  Seems like
> heuristically you could assume that a large volume on a 64-bit OS would need
> 64-bit inodes.  At least perhaps put out a message from mkfs.xfs suggesting
> the use of inode64 on the mount command?


inode64 has been made default, even for 32-bit systems, by recent
versions of xfsprogs so I'd suggest to upgrade your xfsprogs

>
> Thanks.
>
> -Dave
>
> Dave Hall
> Binghamton University
> kdhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 607-760-2328 (Cell)
> 607-777-4641 (Office)
>
>
> On 04/01/2015 08:12 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:53:28PM -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Please pardon the 'top-post', but here is the additional information
>>> requested:
>>>
>>> This is a Dell R720xd dual 8-core Xeon system with 128GB RAM.  The
>>> RAID controller is Dell PERC H710 Mini with 12 2TB disks in RAID6.
>>>
>>> The OS is Debian 6 with kernel 3.2.0-0.bpo.4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian
>>> 3.2.65-1+deb7u2~bpo60+1 x86_64.
>>>
>>
>> So defaults to inode32 allocation....
>>
>>
>>>
>>>  From /proc/mounts:
>>>
>>>     /dev/sdb1 /data xfs
>>>
>>> rw,noexec,noatime,attr2,delaylog,allocsize=64k,logbsize=64k,sunit=128,swidth=1280,usrquota,prjquota
>>>     0 0
>>>
>>
>> ... and inode64 is not in the mount options.....
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The output from xfs_info was previously included, but is repeated here:
>>>
>>> # xfs_info /data
>>> meta-data=/dev/sdb1              isize=256    agcount=19,agsize=268435440
>>> blks
>>>
>>
>> Inode allocation requires contiguous free space of 16k aligned to 8k
>> boundaries to allocate new inode chunks. Also, 1TB AGs, so with
>> inode32, inodes can only be allocated in AG 0.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Here are the more extensive freesp outputs for each of the 19 AGs:
>>>
>>>     # xfs_db -r /dev/sdb1 -c 'freesp -s -a0'
>>>         from      to extents  blocks    pct
>>>            1       1     747     747  19.68
>>>            2       3    1045    2496  65.77
>>>            4       7     138     552  14.55
>>>     total free extents 1930
>>>     total free blocks 3795
>>>     average free extent size 1.96632
>>>
>>
>> And that says you have no correctly aligned free 16k extents that
>> can be allocated in AG 0. i.e. no more inodes can be allocated, and
>> that's where the ENOSPC is coming from.
>>
>> Unmount, add the inode64 mount option, and you'll be able to
>> allocate inodes again as they will be allowed to be allocated in
>> any AG, not just AG 0.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dave.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs



-- 
Yours truly

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