Hi again all, I thought about this a bit more over the past few days, and did some more testing this morning. I am currently thinking that I really don't have as many paths to follow as I originally thought. It seems like, whether I modify sb 0 with xfs_db or not, xfs_repair still wants to see an 11TB filesystem--I did an mdrestore and mount on the metadump image, which saw a 21TB filesystem, then did a umount and xfs_repair, which modified the superblock. On mounting again, the filesystem was back to 11TB. So I think there must be a definite risk of data loss if I try to mount what the latest kernel thinks is a 21TB filesystem, then need to run a repair at a later date, and therefore I have to run an xfs_repair before trying to use the new free space. So, here is what I think is my plan for the actual filesystem: --take another backup --umount all XFS filesystems (the OS filesystems are ext3) --remove the kmod-xfs CentOS package --update to the latest CentOS kernel and reboot, making sure the target XFS fs does not have a mount attempted --run xfs_repair from xfsprogs-3.1.5 --cross fingers :) --mount and check what's in lost+found --if all seems well, attempt another xfs_growfs using xfsprogs-3.1.5 Does this seem like a reasonable plan of attack? If so, is there a way to estimate how long the actual xfs_repair will take from my xfs_repair sessions on the metadump image? Obviously the hardware isn't the same, but I'd just hope for a back of the envelope estimate, not necessarily something terribly accurate. Finally, are there other things I can try on the metadump image first to give me more information on what'll happen on the live filesystem? Thanks again! --keith -- kkeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
