Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Filesystem\s+Consistency\s+Issues\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Filesystem\s+Consistency\s+Issues\s*$/: 51 ]

Total 51 documents matching your query.

1. Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 22:25:06 +0800; We use XFS (Linux kernel 2.6.12 on Debian 3.1 Sarge) on fat client point-of-sale terminals. Right now we have four hypermarts with about 40 terminals each, all running the same setup. The POS applic; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00004.html (10,698 bytes)
2. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: David Brown <xfs@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 17:41:37 -0800; Most likely, the problem is that the root filesystem is being mounted readonly by the kernel. This is default, and I believe Debian leaves that as the default. The problem is that the readonly root m; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00007.html (8,914 bytes)
3. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 09:52:55 +0800; You're right. It looks like /etc/lilo.conf on the machines still has the "read-only" parameter built-in. We will change this and see if things get fixed. Thanks! --> Jijo -- Federico Sevilla III : ji; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00008.html (9,531 bytes)
4. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: 05 Dec 2005 04:41:05 -0700; That sounds like a bug. Shouldn't log replay happening on ro->rw mount? BTW I think ext3/reiser solve the problem by replaying the logs even when the mount is ro. That would be another alternative. I; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00011.html (9,904 bytes)
5. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:23:10 -0600; XFS runs recovery on a readonly filesystem. It has been doing that for years. There are log messages which come out when recovery runs, you should see them in dmesg or the syslog after boot up. Steve; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00012.html (10,960 bytes)
6. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:31:35 -0600; Stephen Lord wrote: XFS runs recovery on a readonly filesystem. It has been doing that for years. There are log messages which come out when recovery runs, you should see them in dmesg or the syslog; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00014.html (9,748 bytes)
7. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:49:32 +0800; pos01:~# dmesg | grep -i xfs SGI XFS with no debug enabled XFS mounting filesystem hda1 Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: hda1 (dev: hda1) Ending XFS recovery on filesystem: hda1 (dev: hda1) VFS:; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00015.html (10,578 bytes)
8. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:49:53 -0900; I believe there may be a slight problem with how this works in certain circumstances. I have observed the following problem, but have not had time to do proper tests to confirm it. Basically the situ; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00016.html (10,898 bytes)
9. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:10:16 -0600; Federico Sevilla III wrote: So the logs "advertise" that log recovery is done. However, "ghost" disk usage continues to increase until the disks are full, and this can only be fixed first by mounting; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00017.html (10,219 bytes)
10. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:11:34 -0600; Ethan Benson wrote: On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0600, Stephen Lord wrote: XFS runs recovery on a readonly filesystem. It has been doing that for years. There are log messages which come out w; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00018.html (11,263 bytes)
11. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:37:16 +1100; Is it easily reproduced (sounds like it)? If so, could you come up with a test case for us to analyse? That would be a huge help here.. thanks! -- Nathan; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00021.html (9,860 bytes)
12. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:25:24 +0800; Basically our POS application writes a bunch of audit information to disk after what we call a terminal reading, which is done to every operational POS terminal at the end of a selling day. The store; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00022.html (10,495 bytes)
13. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:22:28 +0800; I don't have exact figures, but for a 20GB filesystem with only 800MB used "for real", the rescue mount brought usage down to about 15GB, and then the repair took care of the rest. Basically just dis; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00023.html (10,516 bytes)
14. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi); Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 23:41:42 +0000; Somewhat odd idea... XFS is designed towards really large systems, even if it supports small ones fairly decently. Perhaps, but that is about as good as it goes. IIRC Debian Sarge mounts the root fi; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00032.html (13,313 bytes)
15. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: David Brown <xfs@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:03:33 -0800; The distributions mount count/time checks would only invoke fsck.xfs, which never does anything. It shouldn't be possible to mount the root filesystem without replaying logs, so this is likely to be; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00033.html (9,314 bytes)
16. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:28:27 -0600; IIRC Debian Sarge mounts the root filesystem in a way that for example does not necessarily trigger the mount count/time based check. At least it did not happen on my mostly-Sarge PC. The distributio; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00034.html (10,081 bytes)
17. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:39:58 -0600; Steve Lord wrote: XFS always does a scan of the log on mount, it always replays the log if it is not terminated with an unmount record. The fact that the filesystem is mounted readonly during startup; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00036.html (9,764 bytes)
18. Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 22:25:06 +0800; We use XFS (Linux kernel 2.6.12 on Debian 3.1 Sarge) on fat client point-of-sale terminals. Right now we have four hypermarts with about 40 terminals each, all running the same setup. The POS applic; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00122.html (10,698 bytes)
19. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: David Brown <xfs@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 17:41:37 -0800; Most likely, the problem is that the root filesystem is being mounted readonly by the kernel. This is default, and I believe Debian leaves that as the default. The problem is that the readonly root m; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00125.html (8,914 bytes)
20. Re: Filesystem Consistency Issues (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 09:52:55 +0800; You're right. It looks like /etc/lilo.conf on the machines still has the "read-only" parameter built-in. We will change this and see if things get fixed. Thanks! --> Jijo -- Federico Sevilla III : ji; /archives/xfs/2005-12/msg00126.html (9,531 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]