Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+corruption\s+on\s+2\.4\.28\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+corruption\s+on\s+2\.4\.28\s*$/: 36 ]

Total 36 documents matching your query.

1. Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: Ludek Finstrle <luf@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:20:45 +0100; I'm not so sure. xfs_repair moved / and some other files to lost+found in first run after a long time (and xfs_fsr). I try xfs_fsr and xfs_repair after few hours next time. So it seems conformable t; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00000.html (8,307 bytes)
2. RE: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: "Renaat Dumon" <renaat.dumon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:19:08 +0100; Thanks, but putting another kernel on that box might not be that easy, I get this box in an "appliance" form. I don't have the kernel .config etc R. (or similar). I'm not so sure. xfs_repair moved /; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00001.html (8,927 bytes)
3. Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: "'Ludek Finstrle'" <luf@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:14:00 +0100; I'm sorry, I misunderstood word "appliance" before. Why don't you claim it? Or why don't you consult it with your suplier at least? Luf; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00002.html (8,213 bytes)
4. RE: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: "Renaat Dumon" <renaat.dumon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 14:50:13 +0100; Hi Eric, I did the tests, (added one "for" loop because of [0-9a-f]/[0-9a-f]/[0-9a-f]/somereallylongfilename.somenumber.db ) I did not observe the behaviour then :( I have - in the mean time - gotten; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00010.html (10,903 bytes)
5. RE: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: "Renaat Dumon" <renaat.dumon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:39:50 +0100; Mounting the filesystem without the geometry doesn't change things, the size is still wrongly reported for .db files. I have however found files that should be 44 bytes (from ls -al) and bacardi 0 #; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00013.html (11,278 bytes)
6. Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:56:49 -0600; Renaat Dumon wrote: Mounting the filesystem without the geometry doesn't change things, the size is still wrongly reported for .db files. Ok, good to know. You should put it back now :) I have howeve; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00014.html (9,684 bytes)
7. Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:34:15 -0600; Renaat Dumon wrote: Hi Eric, I've put the parameters back, and had a contact with one the "platform" guys of my vendor. When I asked if he could think of something to explain the fact that apparently; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00025.html (8,857 bytes)
8. Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: Ludek Finstrle <luf@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:20:45 +0100; I'm not so sure. xfs_repair moved / and some other files to lost+found in first run after a long time (and xfs_fsr). I try xfs_fsr and xfs_repair after few hours next time. So it seems conformable t; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00155.html (8,307 bytes)
9. RE: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: "Renaat Dumon" <renaat.dumon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:19:08 +0100; Thanks, but putting another kernel on that box might not be that easy, I get this box in an "appliance" form. I don't have the kernel .config etc R. (or similar). I'm not so sure. xfs_repair moved /; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00156.html (8,927 bytes)
10. Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: "'Ludek Finstrle'" <luf@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:14:00 +0100; I'm sorry, I misunderstood word "appliance" before. Why don't you claim it? Or why don't you consult it with your suplier at least? Luf; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00157.html (8,213 bytes)
11. RE: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: "Renaat Dumon" <renaat.dumon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 14:50:13 +0100; Hi Eric, I did the tests, (added one "for" loop because of [0-9a-f]/[0-9a-f]/[0-9a-f]/somereallylongfilename.somenumber.db ) I did not observe the behaviour then :( I have - in the mean time - gotten; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00165.html (10,903 bytes)
12. RE: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: "Renaat Dumon" <renaat.dumon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:39:50 +0100; Mounting the filesystem without the geometry doesn't change things, the size is still wrongly reported for .db files. I have however found files that should be 44 bytes (from ls -al) and bacardi 0 #; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00168.html (11,278 bytes)
13. Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:56:49 -0600; Renaat Dumon wrote: Mounting the filesystem without the geometry doesn't change things, the size is still wrongly reported for .db files. Ok, good to know. You should put it back now :) I have howeve; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00169.html (9,684 bytes)
14. Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:34:15 -0600; Renaat Dumon wrote: Hi Eric, I've put the parameters back, and had a contact with one the "platform" guys of my vendor. When I asked if he could think of something to explain the fact that apparently; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00180.html (8,857 bytes)
15. XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: "Renaat Dumon" <renaat.dumon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:25:58 +0100; I'm encountering errors with an XFS filesystem on a couple of production servers, and although I can't really reproduce this in a snap, I have had this issue on multiple running identical configurat; /archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00123.html (10,106 bytes)
16. Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: Ludek Finstrle <luf@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:04:29 +0100; I notice this behaviour few weeks ago (max. 4 weeks). There is a patch for it in CVS. Try search through mail-archiv for "df vs du -sk" (or similar). I hope it helps Luf; /archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00125.html (8,499 bytes)
17. Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:13:56 -0600; Ludek Finstrle wrote: I notice this behaviour few weeks ago (max. 4 weeks). There is a patch for it in CVS. Try search through mail-archiv for "df vs du -sk" (or similar). I -think- that that fix is; /archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00127.html (8,797 bytes)
18. Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:23:29 -0600; Renaat Dumon wrote: A couple questions early on - is this stock 2.4.28 from kernel.org? Are you using extended attributes? Have you run xfs_fsr on this filesystem? I doubt that fsr is the culprit her; /archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00128.html (11,542 bytes)
19. RE: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: "Renaat Dumon" <renaat.dumon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:33:59 +0100; I don't think I'm using extended attribs, I just do mkfs.xfs and mount :) And I don't know what xfs_fsr is :s I'm running a Gentoo kernel 2.4.28 , but I'm not sure of it's a stock one or not. For wha; /archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00130.html (15,332 bytes)
20. Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28 (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:12:47 -0600; Renaat Dumon wrote: I don't think I'm using extended attribs, I just do mkfs.xfs and mount :) And I don't know what xfs_fsr is :s I'm running a Gentoo kernel 2.4.28 , but I'm not sure of it's a stock; /archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00133.html (11,395 bytes)

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