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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*xfs_growfs\s+failure\.\.\.\.\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. xfs_growfs failure.... (score: 1): Author: Joe Allen <Joe.Allen@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:44:37 -0800; I am in some difficulty here over a 100TB filesystem that Is now unusable after a xfs_growfs command. Is there someone that might help assist? Filesystem "dm-61": Disabling barriers, not supported wi; /archives/xfs/2010-02/msg00326.html (14,703 bytes)
2. Re: xfs_growfs failure.... (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:54:20 +1100; You've grown the filesystem to 238995038208 ectors (111.3TiB), but the underlying device is only 215943192576 sectors (100.5TiB) in size. I'm assuming that you're trying to mount the filesystem after; /archives/xfs/2010-02/msg00327.html (10,786 bytes)
3. Re: xfs_growfs failure.... (score: 1): Author: pg_xf2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi); Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:10:25 +0000; Shrewd idea! Because 'fsck' takes no time and memory, so the bigger the filesystem the better! ;-). Wondering how long it took to backup 100TB; but of course doing a 'grow' is guaranteed to be error; /archives/xfs/2010-02/msg00328.html (9,100 bytes)
4. RE: xfs_growfs failure.... (score: 1): Author: Jason Vagalatos <Jason.Vagalatos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:40 -0800; Hi David, Im picking this up from Joe. Ill attempt to answer your questions. The underlying device was grown from 89TB to 100TB. The xfs filesystem utilizes an external logdev. After the underlyin; /archives/xfs/2010-02/msg00329.html (26,965 bytes)
5. RE: xfs_growfs failure.... (score: 1): Author: Jason Vagalatos <Jason.Vagalatos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:08:26 -0800; David, This might provide some useful insight too.. I just remembered that the xfs_growfs command was run twice. The first time it errored because I omitted the d option. I reran it with the d opt; /archives/xfs/2010-02/msg00330.html (30,436 bytes)
6. RE: xfs_growfs failure.... (score: 1): Author: Joe Allen <Joe.Allen@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:37:30 -0800; Thanks so much for the help interpreting. We are extremely grateful for your help. I have tried to include some more information you all suggest might help: ~114TiB on a storage device that is report; /archives/xfs/2010-02/msg00332.html (14,494 bytes)
7. RE: xfs_growfs failure.... (score: 1): Author: pg_xf2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi); Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:34:03 +0000; [ ... ] That's the same as "limit=215943192576". Not clear here too; because if the fs was grown to 110TB that number must have come from somewhere. [ ... ] So you extended the LV twice, starting fro; /archives/xfs/2010-02/msg00333.html (13,199 bytes)
8. Re: xfs_growfs failure.... (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:02:11 +1100; OK. Well, XFS writes the new AG header metadata synchronously to the expanded region before making the superblock changes. If they didn't error out, either: a. the block device was large enough b. th; /archives/xfs/2010-02/msg00334.html (12,720 bytes)
9. RE: xfs_growfs failure.... (score: 1): Author: Joe Allen <Joe.Allen@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:27:28 -0800; Dave & Peter We were successfully able to get the FS back on line using the approach you outlined below. Thank you very much for your invaluable assistance. As long as we are in DR, We'll upgrade alo; /archives/xfs/2010-02/msg00336.html (13,925 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]