X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0-r929098 (2010-03-30) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.4.0-r929098 Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q0DIac9j154204 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:36:39 -0600 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1326479792-005fe612a6821fa0001-ps1ADW Received: from anakin.london.02.net (anakin.london.02.net [87.194.255.134]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id YfEJ3eTOp0cJ0uw9 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:36:34 -0800 (PST) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: pg_mh@mh.to.sabi.co.UK X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 87.194.255.134 Received: from ty.sabi.co.UK (87.194.99.40) by anakin.london.02.net (8.5.140) id 4EEB63D20072A99B for xfs@OSS.SGI.com; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:36:32 +0000 Received: from from [127.0.0.1] (helo=tree.ty.sabi.co.UK) by ty.sabi.co.UK with esmtp(Exim 4.71 #1) id 1Rllyn-0004Gu-8k for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:35:57 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <20240.31117.130540.618190@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:35:57 +0000 X-Face: SMJE]JPYVBO-9UR%/8d'mG.F!@.,l@c[f'[%S8'BZIcbQc3/">GrXDwb#;fTRGNmHr^JFb SAptvwWc,0+z+~p~"Gdr4H$(|N(yF(wwCM2bW0~U?HPEE^fkPGx^u[*[yV.gyB!hDOli}EF[\cW*S H&spRGFL}{`bj1TaD^l/"[ msn( /TH#THs{Hpj>)]f> Subject: Re: xfs version and kernels In-Reply-To: <20120113174739.26ae0c07@harpe.intellique.com> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: xfs version and kernels References: <20120113174739.26ae0c07@harpe.intellique.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0a under 23.1.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) From: pg_xf2@xf2.for.sabi.co.UK (Peter Grandi) X-Disclaimer: This message contains only personal opinions X-Barracuda-Connect: anakin.london.02.net[87.194.255.134] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1326479794 X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.94.2, clamav-milter version 0.94.2 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at sgi.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=2.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=2.1 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.85832 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Virus-Status: Clean > [ ... ] couldn't mount on a RedHat 5.3 (antediluvian kernel > 2.6.18-128.el5 ). > running xfs=5Fdb version gave this: > versionnum [0xb4a4+0xa] =3D > V4,NLINK,ALIGN,DALIGN,DIRV2,LOGV2,EXTFLG,MOREBITS,ATTR2,LAZYSBCOUNT Interesting issue. But on my SL57 64 bits I get: ---------------------------------------------------------------- versionnum [0xbd84+0x8] =3D V4,ALIGN,DALIGN,DIRV2,LOGV2,EXTFLG,SECTOR,M= OREBITS,ATTR2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- and that's with kernel 2-6.18-274.12.1.el5 which is nearly the latest. The only difference is 'LAZYSBCOUNT'. I suspect that you have omitted to mention whether the two systems are 64b or 32b or a mix, because IIRC there are some limitations with 32b XFS. Anyhow I did a search for some of those flags and there is a potentially relevant but old reply here: http://uk.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php=3Ftopic=5Fid=3D25247= &forum=3D45 and it seems to be a 32b/64 issue, but not one that I espected: =ABMandriva LINUX uses 64-bit extents in its 32-bit kernel -- so an XFS volume created on that platform could be up to 16TB this doesn't seem to fly on a 32-bit CentOS host The 64-bit build of CentOS can mount Mandriva's XFS volumes fine=BB =ABWhen I saw you had kmod-xfs, I realized yours was 32-bit, therefore, running older version of xfs. The upstream vendor added the xfs support to the kernel as of 5.4 but it was only for x86=5F64. If you are running the 32-bit OS, then you are limited to the old code. I believe there is a plan to provide the xfs support (new code) for i686 and CentOS dev Tru is the lead.=BB That's interesting: the RedHat backports of newer XFS features were only done for the 64b build. However the reply is dated 2006, and a 2.6.18-128 kernel may well be more ancient than that, and since it is from 5.3, it is so old it does not have the backports in the 64b version either as that was done in 5.4.