+Jon Bernard (who somehow got dropped from the e-mail thread when I tried to reply) On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 04:18:31PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:53:23AM -0500, Jon Bernard wrote: > > The image should be available here: > > > > http://c5a6e06e970802d5126f-8c6b900f6923cc24b844c506080778ec.r72.cf1.rackcdn.com/fedora_resize_fails.qcow2 > > Thanks for the image. I've been able to reproduce the problem, and > it's caused by the fact that the inode table is so large that it's > overflowing into a subsequent block group, and the resize code isn't > handling this. Fixing this may be a bit tricky, since the flex_bg > online resize code is a big ugly at the moment, and needs some clean > up so this can be fixed properly. > > Until that can be done --- one question: was there a deliberate reason > why the file system was created with parameters which allocate 32,752 > inodes per block group? That means that a bit over 8 megabytes of > inode table are being reserved for every 128 megabyte (32768 4k > blocks) block group, and that you have more inodes reserved than could > be used if the average file size is 4k or less. In fact, the only way > you could run out of inodes is if you had huge numbers of devices, > sockets, small symlinks, or zero-length files in your file system. > This seems to be a bit of a waste of space, in all liklihood. > > Don't get me wrong; we should be able to handle this case correctly, > and not trigger a BUG_ON, but this is why most people aren't seeing > this particular fault --- it requires a far greater number of inodes > than mke2fs would ever create by default, or that most system > administrators would try to deliberately specify, when creating the > file system. > > I'll look and see what's the best way to fix up fs/ext4/resize.c in > the kernel. > > Regards, > > - Ted -- 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
