From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "George Spelvin" Subject: Re: 64bit + resize2fs... this is Not Good. Date: 14 Nov 2012 02:20:21 -0500 Message-ID: <20121114072021.28351.qmail@science.horizon.com> References: <20121114054347.GA20380@thunk.org> Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: linux@horizon.com, tytso@mit.edu Return-path: Received: from science.horizon.com ([71.41.210.146]:34269 "HELO science.horizon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755230Ab2KNHUW (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:20:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20121114054347.GA20380@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > So the first question is figuring out why the on-line resizing didn't > work for you, since that is what I've spent most of my time trying to > fix up. The secondary question then is trying to figure out whappened > with the off-line resize, and to fix that bug in e2fsprogs. If you don't mind, *my* primary question is "what can I salvage from this rubble?", since I didn't happen to have 8 TB of backup space available to me when I did the resize, and there's soem stuff on the FS I'd rather not lose... So my big question is "where the F did inodes 129 through 2048 get copied to?", since the root directory contains a lot of inodes in that range, and every one I can recover saves a lot of pawing through lost+found later... In hindsght, I wish to hell I had turned on -d 14 and logged the results... If you happen to want to rerun your test with -d8 and tell me what happened there, I'd definitely appreciate it.