| To: | Christian Guggenberger <christian.guggenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB |
| From: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 7 Nov 2006 19:17:48 +1100 |
| Cc: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20061103154448.GA26647@pc51072.physik.uni-regensburg.de> |
| References: | <20061102172608.GA27769@pc51072.physik.uni-regensburg.de> <454A3B28.7010405@sandeen.net> <20061103093203.GA18010@pc51072.physik.uni-regensburg.de> <20061103123418.GP8394166@melbourne.sgi.com> <20061103154448.GA26647@pc51072.physik.uni-regensburg.de> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 04:44:48PM +0100, Christian Guggenberger wrote: > > The superblock: > > > > blocksize = 4096 > > dblocks = 18446744070056148512 > > ... > > agblocks = 84976608 > > agcount = 570 > > > > An AG is ~43.5GB, so 570 AGs is 24.8TB. It's to big, and > > we will only shrink by whole AGs. Hence we have to correct > > agcount and dblocks. > > isn't the AG size 'agblocks * blocksize' == ~324 GB here ? Yes, you are right - I was thinking 512 byte blocks which then gave the right size that you grew to. Otherwise 570*324GB gives 200TB, which is somewhat larger than you apparently tried to grow to... Sorry for the misdirection, but I'm glad to see that you got it fixed. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Weird performance decrease, Shailendra Tripathi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Weird performance decrease, Sascha Nitsch |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB, Christian Guggenberger |
| Next by Thread: | Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB, David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |