On Dec 12, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Simon Matthews <simon.d.matthews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Dec 9, 2016, at 9:35 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 12/9/16 2:29 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: >>>> On Dec 8, 2016, at 10:40 PM, Simon Matthews <simon.d.matthews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I have an ext3 filesystem that will not mount under newer versions of >>>>> the kernel and I hope someone here can help. >>>>> >>>>> Obviously, one solution is "backup and re-create from scratch". I have >>>>> the backups, but I hope that there may be a quicker method to fix the >>>>> issues. >>>>> >>>>> The root issue is that the filesystem is very slightly smaller than >>>>> the allocated space. >>> >>> So the device is now smaller than the filesystem thinks, right? >>> >>>>> The filesystem exists on a MDRAID device and I think that when I >>>>> converted the MDRAID to a newer metadata version, it truncated the >>>>> available size, slightly. However, how I got here isn't really >>>>> important, fixing it now is. >>>> >>>> Running "e2fsck -fy" should fix this. I'd recommend to use the latest >>>> version of e2fsck. >>> >>> Reaslly? e2fsck can change total blocks in the superblock to accomodate >>> a shrunken device? That's a new one for me... >> >> Strange, I thought this case was handled properly by e2fsck. >> >> You could probably fix this with: >> >> # debugfs -w -R "ssv blocks_count 693359326" /dev/md5 > > > "probably"? > > How safe or dangerous is this? Does the filesystem have to be unmounted first? The filesystem *definitely* needs to be unmounted first. I wouldn't classify this change as being super dangerous, because it is only removing a few blocks from the end of the filesystem, and e2fsck should handle the case where inodes reference blocks beyond EOFS as any other corrupt blocks. I don't think that is likely to happen in this case, unless your filesystem is extremely full, since extN filesystems front-end bias allocations to the faster part of the storage device. That said, I haven't tested this process[*], and if you are concerned that it may eat your data (that is always possible) you should make a backup. You should probably make a backup even if you aren't going to do this, as that is always a good idea. As with any free advice you on the internet YMMV, and the final decision is up to you. The other option is to make a new filesystem on a second set of storage and then copy the old files over. That also has benefits that the old filesystem acts as your backup, you get any new features enabled in ext4 when the filesystem is newly formatted, and the files will likely be laid laid out on disk contiguously during the copy, so it will defragment the filesystem (not that ext4 needs this very much). PS: I added "-w" to the debugfs command above, or it would have failed Cheers, Andreas [*] I did just try this on a test filesystem and it worked OK for me: [root@mookie ~]# dumpe2fs -h /dev/dm-53 | grep "Block count" dumpe2fs 1.42.13.wc5 (15-Apr-2016) Block count: 2621440 [root@mookie ~]# debugfs -w -R "ssv blocks_count 2621400" /dev/dm-53 debugfs 1.42.13.wc5 (15-Apr-2016) [root@mookie ~]# e2fsck -fn /dev/dm-53 e2fsck 1.42.13.wc5 (15-Apr-2016) Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes Pass 2: Checking directory structure Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity Pass 4: Checking reference counts Pass 5: Checking group summary information Free blocks count wrong for group #79 (26047, counted=26007). Fix? no Free blocks count wrong (2226761, counted=2226721). Fix? no Padding at end of block bitmap is not set. Fix? no myth_2-MDT0000: ********** WARNING: Filesystem still has errors ********** myth_2-MDT0000: 1010990/2621440 files (0.1% non-contiguous), 394639/2621400 blocks [root@mookie ~]# e2fsck -fp /dev/dm-53 myth_2-MDT0000: Padding at end of block bitmap is not set. FIXED. myth_2-MDT0000: 1010990/2621440 files (0.1% non-contiguous), 394679/2621400 blocks
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
