On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 10:59:03AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 6/30/11 4:42 PM, kkeller@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > # uname -a > > Linux sahara.xxx 2.6.18-128.1.6.el5 #1 SMP Wed Apr 1 09:10:25 EDT 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > > Yes, it's not a completely current kernel. This box is running CentOS 5 > > with some yum updates. > > try > > # rpm -qa | grep xfs > > If you see anything with "kmod" you're running an exceptionally old xfs codebase. Yes, I do have a kmod-xfs package, so clearly a kernel update is in order. So my goals are twofold: 1) verify the current filesystem's state--is it healthy, or does it need xfs_db voodoo? 2) once it's determined healthy, again attempt to grow the filesystem. Here is my current plan for reaching these goals: 0) get a nearer-term backup, just in case :) The filesystem still seems perfectly normal, but without knowing what my first xfs_growfs did I don't know if or how long this state will last. 1) umount the fs to run xfs_db 2) attempt a remount--is this safe, or is there risk of damaging the filesystem? 3) If a remount succeeds, then update the kernel and xfsprogs. If a remount doesn't work, then revert to the near-term backup I took in 0) and attempt to fix the issue (with the help of the list, I hope). 4) In either case, post my xfs_db output to the list and get your opinions on the health of the fs. 5) If the fs seems correct, attempt xfs_growfs again. Do all these steps seem reasonable? I am most concerned about step 2-- I really do want to be able to remount as quickly as possible, but I do not know how to tell whether it's okay from xfs_db's output. So if a remount attempt is reasonably nondestructive (i.e., it won't make worse an already unhealthy XFS fs) then I can try it and hope for the best. (From the other threads I've seen it seems like it's not a good idea to run xfs_repair.) Would it make more sense to update the kernel and xfsprogs before attempting a remount? If a remount fails under the original kernel, what do people think the odds are that a new kernel would be able to mount the original fs, or is that really unwise? Again, many thanks for all your help. --keith -- kkeller@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
