Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*mount\s+failed\s+after\s+xfs

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*mount\s+failed\s+after\s+xfs_growfs\s+beyond\s+16\s+TB\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

1. mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: Christian Guggenberger <christian.guggenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:26:08 +0100; a colleague recently tried to grow a 16 TB filesystem (x86, 32bit) on top of lvm2 to 17TB. (I am not even sure if that's supposed work with linux-2.6, 32bit) used kernel seems to be debian sarge's 2; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00003.html (11,202 bytes)
2. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:38:32 -0600; If you have CONFIG_LBD enabled (do you?), it should in theory, barring bugs :) hmm old.... trace below looks like not... in the growfs thread here This is checking: if (unlikely( sbp->sb_dblocks == 0; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00004.html (13,467 bytes)
3. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:41:42 +1100; Not supported - any metadata access past 16TB will wrap the 32 bit page cache index for the metadata address space and you'll corrupt the filesystem. No, growfs failed trying to extend the data parti; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00007.html (10,498 bytes)
4. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: Christian Guggenberger <christian.guggenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 10:32:03 +0100; xfs_db: read failed: Invalid argument xfs_db: data size check failed magicnum = 0x58465342 blocksize = 4096 dblocks = 18446744070056148512 rblocks = 0 rextents = 0 uuid = 27d35a50-724e-440b-ae1a-79f; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00013.html (11,639 bytes)
5. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 23:34:18 +1100; That looks like an overflow to me ;) Free space gone kaboom too... Which is just less than 16TB: 0x1ffeffaf0000 Which is just more than 16TB: 0x2008ccb00000 Probably corrupted metadata in the first c; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00014.html (12,995 bytes)
6. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 08:54:43 -0600; David Chinner wrote: On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 06:26:08PM +0100, Christian Guggenberger wrote: Hi, a colleague recently tried to grow a 16 TB filesystem (x86, 32bit) on top of lvm2 to 17TB. (I am not e; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00015.html (10,698 bytes)
7. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: Christian Guggenberger <christian.guggenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:44:48 +0100; isn't the AG size 'agblocks * blocksize' == ~324 GB here ? got further input on a secondray superblock form the colleague: looks more reasonable, I'd say. Is there a way to manually recover sb0 from; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00017.html (11,646 bytes)
8. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 09:54:51 -0600; Christian Guggenberger wrote: xfs_db mojo.... ;) Note - no guarantee this will work - practise on an expendable sparse loopback filessytem image by making a filesystem of slightly less than 16TB then; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00018.html (10,732 bytes)
9. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 11:15:22 +1000; Good idea, Eric. I've created a pv. I noticed this was taken from xfs_mount_validate_sb() for the dblocks test. I guess it would be nice to abstract this test in a macro for use in multiple places. C; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00022.html (11,461 bytes)
10. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 21:25:13 -0600; Timothy Shimmin wrote: Good idea, Eric. I've created a pv. I noticed this was taken from xfs_mount_validate_sb() for the dblocks test. yep I guess it would be nice to abstract this test in a macro fo; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00023.html (10,104 bytes)
11. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: Christian Guggenberger <christian.guggenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:41:48 +0100; ... for your info - with recent xfsprogs (2.8.11) repair (on a 32bit system) succeeded. No xfs_db magic needed. thanks again for your help, cheers. - Christian; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00027.html (10,582 bytes)
12. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 19:17:48 +1100; 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...; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00029.html (10,324 bytes)
13. mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:26:08 +0100; a colleague recently tried to grow a 16 TB filesystem (x86, 32bit) on top of lvm2 to 17TB. (I am not even sure if that's supposed work with linux-2.6, 32bit) used kernel seems to be debian sarge's 2; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00211.html (11,202 bytes)
14. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:38:32 -0600; If you have CONFIG_LBD enabled (do you?), it should in theory, barring bugs :) hmm old.... trace below looks like not... in the growfs thread here This is checking: if (unlikely( sbp->sb_dblocks == 0; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00212.html (13,467 bytes)
15. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:41:42 +1100; Not supported - any metadata access past 16TB will wrap the 32 bit page cache index for the metadata address space and you'll corrupt the filesystem. No, growfs failed trying to extend the data parti; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00215.html (10,498 bytes)
16. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 10:32:03 +0100; xfs_db: read failed: Invalid argument xfs_db: data size check failed magicnum = 0x58465342 blocksize = 4096 dblocks = 18446744070056148512 rblocks = 0 rextents = 0 uuid = 27d35a50-724e-440b-ae1a-79f; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00221.html (11,639 bytes)
17. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 23:34:18 +1100; That looks like an overflow to me ;) Free space gone kaboom too... Which is just less than 16TB: 0x1ffeffaf0000 Which is just more than 16TB: 0x2008ccb00000 Probably corrupted metadata in the first c; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00222.html (12,995 bytes)
18. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 08:54:43 -0600; David Chinner wrote: On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 06:26:08PM +0100, Christian Guggenberger wrote: Hi, a colleague recently tried to grow a 16 TB filesystem (x86, 32bit) on top of lvm2 to 17TB. (I am not e; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00223.html (10,698 bytes)
19. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:44:48 +0100; isn't the AG size 'agblocks * blocksize' == ~324 GB here ? got further input on a secondray superblock form the colleague: looks more reasonable, I'd say. Is there a way to manually recover sb0 from; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00225.html (11,646 bytes)
20. Re: mount failed after xfs_growfs beyond 16 TB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 09:54:51 -0600; Christian Guggenberger wrote: xfs_db mojo.... ;) Note - no guarantee this will work - practise on an expendable sparse loopback filessytem image by making a filesystem of slightly less than 16TB then; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00226.html (10,732 bytes)

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