On 7/7/11 1:25 PM, Keith Keller wrote: > Hi all, > > First, I hope that this message fixes my mail client breaking threading. > > I am sorry for following up my own post (again), but I realized this > morning that there may be another possible risk I had not considered: > > On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 03:51:32PM -0700, kkeller@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >> So, here is my xfs_db output. This is still on a mounted filesystem. > > How safe/risky is it to leave this filesystem mounted and in use? > I'm not too concerned about new data, since it won't be a huge amount, > but I am wondering if data that's already been written may be at risk. > Or, it it a reasonable guess that the kernel is still working completely > with the old filesystem geometry, and so won't write anything beyond the > old limits while it's still mounted? df certainly seems to use the old > fs size, not the new one. I don't remember all the implications of this very old bug... It seems like you need an "exit strategy" - you probably cannot leave your fs mounted -forever- ... If it were me, if possible, I'd make backups of the fs as it's mounted now, then umount it and make an xfs_metadump of it, restore that metadump to a new sparse file, and point xfs_repair at that metadata image file, to see what repair might do with it. If repair eats it alive, then we can look into more xfs_db type surgery to fix things up more nicely... -Eric > Thanks again, > > > --keith > > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
