On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:49:29AM +0200, Birger Wathne wrote: > > > > >If you could send the output of the fsck that you're seeing, I can probably > >tell you if it's an issue or not. > > Perhaps my procedure for doing this is wrong? I stop all services using > clusvcadm -s <service>, umount the file system and run gfs_fsck. This is with a single node mounting GFS? Nobody else is touching the filesystem or disk GFS is on? > This is very typical: > > Extended attributes block out of range...removing This is saying that an extended attribute block is either outside the valid blocks for the filesystem...not sure why this would happen on a cleanly unmounted fs - do you know what services you are using that use extended attributes? > . > . > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16470 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16471 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16472 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16473 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16474 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16475 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16476 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16477 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16478 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16479 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16480 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16481 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16482 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16483 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16484 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16485 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16486 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16487 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16488 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16489 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16490 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16491 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16492 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16493 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16494 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16495 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16496 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16497 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16498 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16499 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16500 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 16501 > Succeeded. > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 6016570 > Succeeded. > free count inconsistent: is 66 should be 67 > free meta count inconsistent: is 11 should be 10 > ondisk and fsck bitmaps differ at block 6748878 > Succeeded. > free count inconsistent: is 66 should be 67 > free meta count inconsistent: is 11 should be 10 These are likely related to the bad extended attribute above. If an extended attribute block is found bad, the entire extended attribute is removed. Regards, -- AJ Lewis Voice: 612-638-0500 Red Hat Inc. E-Mail: alewis@xxxxxxxxxx One Main Street SE, Suite 209 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Current GPG fingerprint = D9F8 EDCE 4242 855F A03D 9B63 F50C 54A8 578C 8715 Grab the key at: http://people.redhat.com/alewis/gpg.html or one of the many keyservers out there...
Attachment:
pgpcC3Y1ytzvx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
