xfs file system in process of becoming corrupt; though xfs_repair thinks it's fine! ; -/ (was xfs_dump problem...)

[Linda A. Walsh]

Michael Weissenbacher wrote:
> Hi!
>>> 2359101 ?????????? ? ? ? ?                ? 30-Omoide to Yakusoku (TV saizu｜Reinaʼs Ver.).mp3
>>> 2354946 ?????????? ? ? ? ?                ? 31-Omoide to Yakusoku (TV saizu｜Tomoeʼs Ver.).mp3
>>> 2354949 ?????????? ? ? ? ?                ? 32-Omoide to Yakusoku (TV saizu｜Nanualʼs Ver.).mp3
>>> ls: cannot access bad2/30-Omoide to Yakusoku (TV saizu｜Reinaʼs Ver.).mp3: No such file or directory
>>> ls: cannot access bad2/31-Omoide to Yakusoku (TV saizu｜Tomoeʼs Ver.).mp3: No such file or directory
>>> ls: cannot access bad2/32-Omoide to Yakusoku (TV saizu｜Nanualʼs Ver.).mp3: No such file or directory
>> ...
>>
>> If there are no problems reported by repair, then I suspect that
>> it's a terminal level problem...
>>
> Looking at this i remember having similar problems when my filesystems
> was mounted with inode64 before and after i left out that parameter. So
> Linda, could you re-try mounting the fs with "inode64".
----
	I ran into that before as well -- already tried

Notice the listing you see is the output of "ls -in".
Those numbers are the inodes.  ...HEY, wait.
When do you need 64-bit inodes?  The dump size said it was:
xfsdump: estimated dump size: 2360915740992 bytes

It's getting right near to overflowing a 32-bit integer.

Do I need >32 bit inodes if the filesystem size is > 2T?

I'm guessing the file system just recently passed the 2G mark.
Note -- I DID try the inode64 mount option -- it made no difference.


But if you need 64-bit inodes for file systems > 2T file systems,
then shouldn't I have gotten some error rather than it eating files
for lunch?

The inode numbers themselves, are not even close to being over 32bits.  

Sigh...