On Sun 03/07/11 3:14 PM , Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [some rearranging] > You're welcome but here's the obligatory plug in return - running RHEL5 > proper would have gotten you up to date, fully supported xfs, and you > wouldn't have run into this mess. Just sayin' ... ;) Yep, that's definitely a lesson learned. Though I don't think I can blame CentOS either--from what I can tell the bug has been available from yum for some time now. So it's pretty much entirely my own fault. :( I also am sorry for not preserving threading--for some reason, the SGI mailserver rejected mail from my normal host (which is odd, as it's not in any blacklists I know of), so I am using an unfamiliar mail client. > You probably hit this bug: > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-01/msg00053.html [1] > > See also: > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2009-07/msg00087.html [2] > > I can't remember how much damage the original bug did ... If any? I'm a bit amazed that, if there was damage, that the filesystem is still usable. Perhaps if I were to fill it it would show signs of inconsistency? Or remounting would read the now-incorrect values from the superblock 0? > is it still mounted I guess? Yes, it's still mounted, and as far as I can tell perfectly fine. But I won't really know till I can throw xfs_repair -n and/or xfs_db and/or remount it; I'm choosing to get as much data off as I can before I try these things, just in case. How safe is running xfs_db with -r on my mounted filesystem? I understand that results might not be consistent, but on the off chance that they are I am hoping that it might be at least a little helpful. I was re-reading some of the threads I posted in my original messages, in particular these posts: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00210.html http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00211.html If I am reading those, plus the xfs_db man page, correctly, it seems like what Russell suggested was to look at superblock 1 (or some other one?) and use those values to correct superblock 0. At what points (if any) are the other superblocks updated? I was testing on another machine, on a filesystem that I had successfully grown using xfs_growfs, and of the two values Russell suggested the OP to change, dblocks is different between sb 0 and sb 1, but agcount is not. Could that just be that I did not grow the filesystem too much, so that agcount didn't need to change? That seems a bit counterintuitive, but (as should be obvious) I don't know XFS all that well. I am hoping to know because, in re-reading those messages, I got a better idea of what those particular xfs_db commands do, so that if I did run into problems remounting, I might be able to determine the appropriate new values myself and reduce my downtime. But I want to understand more what I'm doing before I try! that! --keith -- kkeller@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
