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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Unsupported\s+sector\s+size\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 14:45:24 +1000; I thought you said this was a 4K sector size device? Using a smaller sector size if the hardware doesn't support it is not going to work. An updated mkfs would warn you, I expect. cheers. -- Nathan; /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00007.html (8,603 bytes)
2. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author: Johann Lombardi <johann.lombardi@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 11:47:28 +0200; The storage system I am using allows me to choose the sector size (at LUN creation time). Besides, I have already successfully used ext3 with 512 and 4096 sector sizes. I will send you the output of; /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00013.html (8,463 bytes)
3. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 12:08:52 -0500 (CDT); the last ag can be smaller, so no, not quite equal. the test you're failing is whether dblocks > agcount * agblocks. 6553600 is a very.... interesting number for dblocks, strikes me as too round. :); /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00048.html (8,509 bytes)
4. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author: Johann Lombardi <johann.lombardi@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 19:00:14 +0200; Here is the output of xfs_db: xfs_db: sb 0 xfs_db: p dblocks dblocks = 6553600 xfs_db: p agcount agcount = 26 xfs_db: p agblocks agblocks = 262144 dblocks is not 0, so we must be in the second case.; /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00049.html (8,707 bytes)
5. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author: Johann Lombardi <johann.lombardi@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 21:27:02 +0200; Phase 1 - find and verify superblock... bad primary superblock - inconsistent filesystem geometry information !!! .... attempting to find secondary superblock... ... Then, xfs_repair always prints t; /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00061.html (11,345 bytes)
6. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 13:42:30 +1000; I think you're actually failing the third check of the three... if (unlikely( sbp->sb_dblocks == 0 || sbp->sb_dblocks > (xfs_drfsbno_t)sbp->sb_agcount * sbp->sb_agblocks || sbp->sb_dblocks < (xfs_drf; /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00067.html (9,406 bytes)
7. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author: Johann Lombardi <johann.lombardi@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 18:17:44 +0200; IA64 smp and the pagesize is 16k. OK, you are right. My xfsprog are really old (2.0.3). I have finally decided to upgrade this package (for 2.5.6) and it solves the problem. I didn't know that my xf; /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00068.html (9,100 bytes)
8. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author:; Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 14:45:24 +1000; I thought you said this was a 4K sector size device? Using a smaller sector size if the hardware doesn't support it is not going to work. An updated mkfs would warn you, I expect. cheers. -- Nathan; /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00236.html (8,603 bytes)
9. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author:; Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 11:47:28 +0200; The storage system I am using allows me to choose the sector size (at LUN creation time). Besides, I have already successfully used ext3 with 512 and 4096 sector sizes. I will send you the output of; /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00242.html (8,463 bytes)
10. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 12:08:52 -0500 (CDT); the last ag can be smaller, so no, not quite equal. the test you're failing is whether dblocks > agcount * agblocks. 6553600 is a very.... interesting number for dblocks, strikes me as too round. :); /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00277.html (8,509 bytes)
11. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 19:00:14 +0200; Here is the output of xfs_db: xfs_db: sb 0 xfs_db: p dblocks dblocks = 6553600 xfs_db: p agcount agcount = 26 xfs_db: p agblocks agblocks = 262144 dblocks is not 0, so we must be in the second case.; /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00278.html (8,707 bytes)
12. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 21:27:02 +0200; Phase 1 - find and verify superblock... bad primary superblock - inconsistent filesystem geometry information !!! .... attempting to find secondary superblock... ... Then, xfs_repair always prints t; /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00290.html (11,345 bytes)
13. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 13:42:30 +1000; I think you're actually failing the third check of the three... if (unlikely( sbp->sb_dblocks == 0 || sbp->sb_dblocks > (xfs_drfsbno_t)sbp->sb_agcount * sbp->sb_agblocks || sbp->sb_dblocks < (xfs_drf; /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00296.html (9,406 bytes)
14. Re: Unsupported sector size (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 18:17:44 +0200; IA64 smp and the pagesize is 16k. OK, you are right. My xfsprog are really old (2.0.3). I have finally decided to upgrade this package (for 2.5.6) and it solves the problem. I didn't know that my xf; /archives/xfs/2004-05/msg00297.html (9,100 bytes)
15. ecurity namespace fix (score: 1): Author: Johann Lombardi <johann.lombardi@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:34:23 +0200; When I want to mount a XFS filesystem stored on a 4K sector size device, I get the following error message: XFS: device supports only 4096 byte sectors (not 512) Here is a patch fixing this small mi; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00243.html (7,785 bytes)
16. supported sector size (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: 29 Apr 2004 15:15:21 -0500; Hm, sector_size is gleaned from the underlying block device, via xfs_getsize_buftarg, which calls block_size, which gets so, the message you got is correct I think - the filesystem was made with 512b; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00244.html (9,059 bytes)
17. Fedora Core 2 test 3 (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:14:12 +1000; The message is indeed correct. You should have got a warning from mkfs.xfs when you created the filesystem flagging this as a problem too - did you? (cos if not, thats a driver bug that should be fix; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00247.html (8,527 bytes)
18. Fedora Core 2 test 3 (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:16:34 +1000; Gak, pressed "send" too soon :) -- you'll want to use -ssize=4k at mkfs time with this device, if you haven't found that option already. cheers. -- Nathan; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00249.html (8,372 bytes)
19. ng features in 2.4.26 (score: 1): Author: Johann Lombardi <johann.lombardi@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 00:40:06 +0200; Arrr, read the error message too fast, it is indeed correct. Sorry. My xfsprogs is to old, this option isn't available. I am going to upgrade this package as soon as possible. Thanks. After this iss; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00261.html (10,913 bytes)
20. Fedora Core 2 test 3 (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 23:25:14 -0500 (CDT); you get this message if: you have 0 data blocks in your fs or your data block count doesn't jive with the allocation groups & ag size try: xfs_db /dev/whatever sb 0 p dblocks p agcount p agblocks and; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00263.html (7,932 bytes)

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