On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 00:35:37 -0400, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:48:14PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > For extent-mapped file systems, we need to reserve some extra space in > > case we need to grow the extent tree. Calculate the safety margin > > more intelligently, so we don't overestimate the amount of space > > required. > > > > Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> > > Reported-by: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I'm going to have to self-NACK this. This patch causes the resize2fs > regression tests to fail. (In fact, Dmitry's original patch also > causes the resize2fs regression tests to fail.) Agree, regressions are not acceptable. Can you please spacify which tests are failed. As far as i know xfstetsts has no tests for resize2fs. > The problem is kind of messy; when the file system starts at some > insanely large size, and we shrink it very small, we end up releasing > a lot of inode tables in the first block group (many for other block > groups). But until we're 100% sure the resize will be successful, we > don't want to start overwriting those inode table blocks. > > For this reason, if we try to constrain resize the file system down > from 2TB to 512MB in one shot, we need to do this in multiple steps. > I.e. by calling "resize2fs -M /dev/sdXX" multiple times. > > There really isn't a good way around this, and in fact, if people are > going to be doing silly things like take a file system from 16T down > to 750MB, if they need to run resize2fs multiple times, that's fine. > It would be nice if you could shrink the file system down in a single > shot, but it's not high priority. > > - 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
