Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:44:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from zok.sgi.com (mtvcafw.SGI.COM [192.48.171.6]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with SMTP id i1GJiXKO015069 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:44:33 -0800 Received: from flecktone.americas.sgi.com (flecktone.americas.sgi.com [192.48.203.135]) by zok.sgi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/linux-outbound_gateway-1.1) with ESMTP id i1GJVjHH014009 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:31:45 -0800 Received: from poppy-e236.americas.sgi.com (poppy-e236.americas.sgi.com [128.162.236.207]) by flecktone.americas.sgi.com (8.12.9/8.12.10/SGI_generic_relay-1.2) with ESMTP id i1GJVijh34308848; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:31:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from stout.americas.sgi.com (stout.americas.sgi.com [128.162.232.50]) by poppy-e236.americas.sgi.com (8.12.9/SGI-server-1.8) with ESMTP id i1GJVioa690189; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:31:44 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:31:44 -0600 (CST) From: Eric Sandeen X-X-Sender: sandeen@stout.americas.sgi.com To: mschmitt@inf.ethz.ch cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: XFS: Filesystem sd(8,50) has duplicate UUID - can't mount In-Reply-To: <32995.129.132.10.58.1076948475.squirrel@www.mail.inf.ethz.ch> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2106 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: sandeen@sgi.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs Was the filesystem ever cloned or snapshotted? do you have other xfs filesystems mounted? we could use xfs_db to look at superblocks on each, and see why it thinks it's a duplicate uuid... hm, or perhaps it thinks the filesystem is mounted twice somehow...? -Eric On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 mschmitt@inf.ethz.ch wrote: > Well, the xfs_repair did not fix the problem. I'm running NFS/SMB now on > the fs mounted with -nouuid, I hope that's not a problem... > Will the error message in the subject go away with a reboot only? > > Greetz > Marc > > > Any idea how to find out what could have been the problem? The xfs_repair > > (xfsprogs-2.6.2-0_7.rh7.3.at) is still running and will continue doing so > > for a while, I guess... > >