| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: ls -l versus du -sk after xfs_fsr |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:18:21 -0500 |
| Cc: | Ludek Finstrle <luf@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <433976C5.1000104@sgi.com> |
| References: | <20050926071451.GA3751@soptik.pzkagis.cz> <4338128F.8000707@sgi.com> <20050927163531.GA19652@soptik.pzkagis.cz> <433976C5.1000104@sgi.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) |
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Ludek Finstrle wrote: I suppose we should have checked the attribute fork.... any idea if you're using extended attributes? if you still have a problematic file around, try xfs_bmap with the -a option. -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: ls -l versus du -sk after xfs_fsr, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | LEAFN node level is 1 inode 97055 bno = 8388608, Peter Palfrader |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: ls -l versus du -sk after xfs_fsr, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: ls -l versus du -sk after xfs_fsr, Ludek Finstrle |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |