investigating dmesg, I think e2fsck may have been running out of memory. On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/12/13 11:56 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote: >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:54 PM >> Subject: Re: Fwd: strange e2fsck magic number behaviour >> To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> It was 63GB and I just wanted to fork over 3GB of extra space from my >> Windows partition... > > Ok, so you tried to resize from 63G to 66G? Should have been relatively > easy/safe. I forgot to ask which version of e2fsprogs you had, but if > you did the grow online/mounted, most of the work is done in the kernel. > > As Ted said, knowing more info might yield clues: > > 1) what e2fsprogs version? > 2) what were the kernel messages when it crashed/hung? > 3) what was the fsck output? > > If you didn't save that stuff, it makes it harder to do a post-mortem... > >> The fstab is as follows >> >> /dev/sda1 SYSTEM_DRV ntfs 1.17g (boot) >> /dev/sda2 Windows7_OS ntfs 63.4G >> /dev/sda4 extended partition containing: >> -- /dev/sda6 swap linux-swap 8.05G >> -- /dev/sda5 /home ext4 66.14G >> /dev/sda3 Lenovo_Recovery ntfs 10.25G >> unallocated 1M >> >> that's what was intended and is what gparted reports. (however, >> weirdly, if you ask Ubuntu Disk Utility, it says /dev/sda5 is 71GB and >> /dev/sda4 is correspondingly bigger. this I have only just noticed.) > > TBH, I have no idea what Ubuntu Disk Utility does. I'd trust fdisk -lu > output or /proc/partitions for accurate size info. > > Oh; 61.14GiB (powers of 2) == 71 GB (powers of 10) > > (61.14*1024*1024*1024/1000/1000/1000 = 71) > > So Ubuntu Disk Utility is in cahoots w/ the drive manufacturers, and > using more favorable units. ;) > > -Eric > >> kernel is 3.2.0-29-generic, machine is a ThinkPad X200s with 160GB disk. >> >> thanks for your help. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 9/12/13 11:39 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote: >>>> I'm currently trying to recover an ext4 filesystem. Last night, during >>>> a resize operation, >>> >>> from what size to what size? On what kernel? >>> >>>> the system (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS on my fix-stuff usb >>>> stick) locked up hard and eventually crashed. Restarting, >>>> unsurprisingly, gparted offered to check the volume. e2fsck, called >>>> from within gparted, replayed the journal overnight and completed the >>>> resize. >>> >>> hmmm... perhaps. >>> >>>> however, where I was expecting a volume with about 3.5GB of free >>>> space, there was now a volume with 32GB free space, a bit more than >>>> 50% utilised. inevitably, trying to boot the linux that lives in there >>>> dropped into grub rescue. >>>> >>>> going back, I tried to e2fsck it. this reported large numbers of inode >>>> issues and eventually reported clean. I could mount the volume, but >>>> file metadata looked generally broken (lots of ?s). testdisk showed >>>> the partitions were intact, although it claimed the drive was the >>>> wrong size (incorrectly), and found lots of deleted files within my >>>> ecryptfs home folder. It also found the backup superblocks for the >>>> damaged volume. >>>> >>>> the first couple I tried were corrupt, but the third was valid. e2fsck >>>> -b [superblock] -y reports fixing a lot of inode things, checksums, >>>> and then restarts. it then starts to report hunormous numbers of >>>> multiply-claimed blocks. >>>> >>>> and now comes the interesting bit - at some point, block 16777215 >>>> starts to appear more and more often in the inodes, often duplicated, >>>> until it starts to print out the number 16777215 in a fast loop. in >>>> fact, it looks like it hits some inode and keeps printing block >>>> 16777215 to the same very long line (it's generated 500MB of log) >>> >>> = 111111111111111111111111 binary. >>> >>> Guessing it's maybe a bitmap block? >>> >>> Resize2fs has had a lot of trouble lately it seems. You may have just >>> been the unlucky recipient of a resize2fs bug... >>> >>> -Eric >>> >>>> I removed the first inode containing this block via debugfs, without >>>> this helping. >>>> >>>> It sticks out that 16777215 is a magic number (the maximum in a 48 bit >>>> address space) and I google that either ext4 or e2fsck has had a bug >>>> involving it before. >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>> >>> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
