Thanks so much for all the info!
I am currently looking over the
post to figure out if I need to do antyhing manual to finish expanding the
If it is possible to expand in increments less than 2 TB, is there a way to do
this via xfs_growfs? I am a bit confused by the -D and -R options and which
one would be relevant here. Or do I have to shrink the LVM Logical Volume
first and then just run "xfs_grow /mntpoint".
Also, can I run with the "-n" option to confirm if the xfs_growfs command
"should" complete correctly each time? (looking for docs on this...)
Is there any reason I couldn't grab a newerer release of the XFS tools, etc,
and compile for CentOs 5.0 and use them in this case?
Thanks in advance for the help.
From: Eric Sandeen [mailto:sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:44 PM
Cc: Lance Reed; xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Problems with xfs_grow on large LVM + XFS filesystem 20TB size
check 2 failed
Mark Goodwin wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Lance Reed wrote:
>>> Thanks for the quick response.
>>> Actually, I was able to run an xfs_repair and all was well.(took 45
>>> But I would love to be able to expand the XFS file system out to the max.
>>> I guess I could expand it in < 2TB increments then maybe?
>>> Thanks for the update and I will look around.
>>> I did find this which I think is related.
>> Yep, I think expanding it in, say, 1T increments should be fine, and it
>> should all (I think...) end up the same as if you'd done it all at once
>> (modulo the bug, of course...)
> I think we verified a while back that growing in 2T increments is an
> effective workaround - the bug is due to a signed 32 bit overflow.
> The fix has been available for some time now, but apparently hasn't
> made it's way into Centos yet.
Honestly, I think nothing makes its way back to Centos... I really don't
have the time to maintain it. If anyone on the list uses Centos + xfs
and wants to backport patches that appear to be bugfixes, I'm sure it'd
be welcomed. I'd be happy to facilitate w/ review or whatnot, but
probably won't have time to actually take on this task myself (despite
being the instigator of the centos module originally, which was, in
retrospect, perhaps a tad irresponsible...) :)