On 2/5/12 6:50 PM, Tom Crane wrote: > Hi Christoph, > Many thanks for the quick response and the patch. It was a big help. > I was able to repair our 60TB FS in about 30 hours. I have a couple > of questions; > > (1) The steps in the progress report seem a little strange. See the > attachment. Is this expected? > > (2) This may be a little out of band but I have heard second hand > reports from another sysadmin that the xfs tools which come with SLC5 > (our current Linux distro) should not be relied upon and that SLC6 > should be used. Our 60TB FS is significantly fragmented (~40%) and I > would very much like to run xfs_fsr on it. Given that I have built > the latest xfsprogs, is there any reason I should be afraid of > running xfs_fsr, on the FS which comes with SLC5? Unfortunately I > don't have ~60TB spare storage space elsewhere to backup the FS > before defragging. What would you advise?> > Many thanks Newer tools are fine to use on older filesystems, there should be no issue there. running fsr can cause an awful lot of IO, and a lot of file reorganization. (meaning, they will get moved to new locations on disk, etc). How bad is it, really? How did you arrive at the 40% number? Unless you see perf problems which you know you can attribute to fragmentation, I might not worry about it. You can also check the fragmentation of individual files with the xfs_bmap tool. -Eric > Tom. > > Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 01:36:12PM +0000, Tom Crane wrote: >> >>> Dear XFS Support, >>> I am attempting to use xfs_repair to fix a damaged FS but always >>> get a segfault if and only if -o ag_stride is specified. I have >>> tried ag_stride=2,8,16 & 32. The FS is approx 60T. I can't find >>> reports of this particular problem on the mailing list archive. >>> Further details are; >>> >>> xfs_repair version 3.1.7, recently downloaded via git repository. >>> uname -a >>> Linux store3 2.6.18-274.17.1.el5 #1 SMP Wed Jan 11 11:10:32 CET 2012 >>> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux >>> >> >> Thanks for the detailed bug report. >> >> Can you please try the attached patch? >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
