inode64 readiness testing
Peter Kimball
peterakimball at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 21 14:46:04 CST 2011
On Nov 20, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:33:16PM -0500, Peter Kimball wrote:
>> I created a blank 1GB disk image, created an XFS filesystem on that image, and mounted it on a loopback device using the ino64 flag.
>>
>> I wrote a bunch of data to the filesystem (lots of small files), approximately 600MB.
>>
>> At this point, I think I have a filesystem in which inodes use 64-bit addresses, even if the actual address value would fit in 32 bits. I would expect any program that can't handle 64-bit addresses to barf when trying to access any data on the filesystem.
>
> You will never not see 64-bit inodes on a filesystem that small ever.
> Try to create a (sparse) 10TB loop image, and create some deep
> directories in it. This should create some larger inodes number for
> you if you had it mounted with the inode64 flag. You can verify that
> by checking that the inode number returned from the stat systsem call
> or from ls -i is larger than 32 bits.
>
Thank you for that guide, Christoph. I followed your directions and the directory tree I created included some >32-bit inode numbers so I was able to successfully test all of our NFS clients.
From what I'd read, I thought that the ino64 mount option would do the work for me (bring 32-bit inode numbers into 64-bit range), apparently that is not the case. This method worked great, hopefully the next person to search can find this happy thread.
Many thanks,
Peter
More information about the xfs
mailing list