On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:49:48AM +0200, Andreas Vogler wrote:
>
> > Is your xfsprogs version up to date?
>
>
> I guess the xfsprogs are rather old but they should be on the same level as
> the filesystem as they are part oft he same distro (OpenFiler 2.3, package is
> called xfsprogs=2.6.25-4-0.1).
That's -very- old:
-- Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:57:57 +1000
xfsprogs (2.6.26-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release.
* Man page updates (closes: #295397)
* Fix compilation with gcc version 4 (closes: #297876)
* Switch build dependency from readline4 to readline5.
> > You could also include another email with the output from xfs_db -c "sb 0"
> > -c "p" /dev/blah
>
> Here ist he output of xfs_db:
>
> magicnum = 0x58465342
> blocksize = 4096
> dblocks = 332800000
> rblocks = 0
> rextents = 0
> uuid = 567f4c2f-ce9a-42a3-bbc2-e791cf43f8ae
> logstart = 268435460
> rootino = 128
> rbmino = 129
> rsumino = 130
> rextsize = 1
> agblocks = 83200000
> agcount = 4
> rbmblocks = 0
> logblocks = 32768
> versionnum = 0xb4a4
.....
> features2 = 0x8
So it's got the ATTR2 feature bit set.
-- Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:35:39 +1100
xfsprogs (2.7.7-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release.
* Add support for (optional) ATTR2 format extension (closes: #336350)
* Allow gcc -pedantic option for C++ <xfs.h> users (closes: #249429)
* Fix segv in xfs_db frag command (closes: #338207)
So, yeah, upgrade your userspace to something recent, and it will
just work.
> But I have already experimented a little bit, originally
> versionnum was 0xb4f4 but the next superblock (sb 1) contained
> 0xb4a4, so I tried to set it with xfs_db to this value, but it
> didn't make a difference.
Don't stuff around with feature bits if you don't know what they
mean - you'll render parts of your filesystem
unusable/corrupt/unreadable by doing so.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|