Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*FAQ\s+updated\s+$was\s+Re\:\s+XFS\s+breakage\.\.\.$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*FAQ\s+updated\s+$was\s+Re\:\s+XFS\s+breakage\.\.\.$\s*$/: 65 ]

Total 65 documents matching your query.

1. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:32:31 +1000; There is now a fixed version of xfs_repair available - its in xfsprogs-2.8.10, source is on oss.sgi.com in the XFS ftp area. A number of people have reported success with Barry's earlier patch, noone; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00009.html (8,552 bytes)
2. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:32:31 +1000; There is now a fixed version of xfs_repair available - its in xfsprogs-2.8.10, source is on oss.sgi.com in the XFS ftp area. A number of people have reported success with Barry's earlier patch, noone; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00261.html (8,552 bytes)
3. FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:13:10 +1000; Correction there - no -stable exists with this yet, I guess that'll be 2.6.17.7 once its out though. I've captured the state of this issue here, with options and ways to correct the problem: http://o; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00214.html (10,789 bytes)
4. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:58:07 +0200; Am Donnerstag 20 Juli 2006 09:13 schrieb Nathan Scott: Hello Nathan, thanks a lot. If you need anyone to test a new xfs_repair let me know. I have a partition which that kind of corruption at hand an; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00217.html (10,307 bytes)
5. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Hans-Peter Jansen <hpj@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:42:57 +0200; Hi Nathan, Am Donnerstag, 20. Juli 2006 09:13 schrieb Nathan Scott: Thanks for the pointer. I think, it is valuable for all XFS users, but reading the FAQ with a decent webbrowser on linux (konqueror; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00222.html (10,423 bytes)
6. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: David Greaves <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:28:32 +0100; It does, thanks :) Does this problem exist in 2.16.6.x?? From various comments like: Unless 2.6.16.x is a dead-end could we please also have this patch put into there? and a result (I believe) of the; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00224.html (12,584 bytes)
7. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:11:21 -0700; The change was merged after 2.6.16.x was branched, I was mistaken in how long I thought the bug has been about. Doing the correct change to 2.6.16.x won't hurt, but it's not necessary.; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00227.html (10,939 bytes)
8. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: "Kevin Radloff" <radsaq@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:13:57 -0400; Correction there - no -stable exists with this yet, I guess that'll be 2.6.17.7 once its out though. I've captured the state of this issue here, with options and ways to correct the problem: http://o; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00229.html (13,280 bytes)
9. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Alistair John Strachan <s0348365@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:51:40 +0100; I've been hit by this on my root filesystem today, and when I followed the instructions, I was able to retrieve my data. It turned out that the only corrupted inode was /, which unfortunately meant I; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00231.html (14,112 bytes)
10. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:18:14 -0400 (EDT); Does the bug only occur during a crash? I have been running 2.6.17.x for awhile now (multiple XFS filesystems, all on UPS) - no issue? Justin. On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Nathan Scott wrote: On Thu, Jul 20; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00233.html (12,982 bytes)
11. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:14:52 +1000; Yep. As Chris said, 2.6.17 is the only affected kernel. I've fixed up the whacky html formatting and my merge error (thanks to all for reporting those) so its a bit more readable now. cheers. -- Nath; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00234.html (11,706 bytes)
12. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:24:49 +1000; No, its unrelated to crashing. Only when adding/removing from a directory that is in a specific node/btree format (many entries), and only under a specific set of conditions (like what directory entr; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00235.html (11,892 bytes)
13. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:43:34 -0400 (EDT); On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Nathan Scott wrote: On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:18:14PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote: Nathan, Does the bug only occur during a crash? No, its unrelated to crashing. Only when adding; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00236.html (12,821 bytes)
14. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:52:30 +1000; xfs_repair -n is another option, it has a cheaper (memory wise, usually) checking algorithm. Not necessarily, no - mount will only read the root inode. cheers. -- Nathan; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00238.html (11,953 bytes)
15. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:55:51 -0400 (EDT); - agno = 37 No modify flag set, skipping phase 5 Phase 6 - check inode connectivity... - traversing filesystem starting at / ... free block 16777216 for directory inode 2684356622 bad nused free blo; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00239.html (13,622 bytes)
16. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:57:11 -0400 (EDT); Erm, the xfs_repair -n only prints out what it needs to fix, I read somewhere that xfs_repair may make things worse? What is the 'correct' fix? On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Justin Piszcz wrote: Nasty! - agno; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00240.html (14,160 bytes)
17. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 09:00:15 +1000; You have two corrupt directory inodes (caused by this bug, that is exactly the signature I'd expect - it was a nused field that was affected by the dodgey endian change). The two inodes need to be fi; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00241.html (12,342 bytes)
18. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:10:46 -0400 (EDT); Running xfs_repair multiple times (after following the FAQ for the write core.mode 0 fix), I get this: - agno = 3 - agno = 4 - agno = 5 - agno = 6 entry ".." at block 0 offset 1352 in directory inod; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00242.html (18,910 bytes)
19. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:12:46 -0700; lost+found is recreated every time, rename it and you'll get less output; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00243.html (11,595 bytes)
20. Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...) (score: 1): Author: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:15:10 -0400 (EDT); Thanks, that was it, after removing the lost+found directory & re-running xfs_repair, I no longer have any errors, onthat device anyway. On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Chris Wedgwood wrote: On Thu, Jul 20, 200; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00244.html (12,690 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]