From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: status on 'tune2fs -I 256' ? Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:46:17 -0500 Message-ID: <4A2878E9.40802@redhat.com> References: <7284e2210906041651g10761a2fy7eda6d308b7ccb4d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Hunley Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:57240 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751608AbZFEBqT (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2009 21:46:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7284e2210906041651g10761a2fy7eda6d308b7ccb4d@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Doug Hunley wrote: > I recently converted my '/' filesytem to ext4 from ext3 using: > tune2fs -O extents,uninit_bg,dir_index /dev/md3 > > I did *not* use '-I 256' as I'd read several reports of this causing > corruption. However, I've just checked the ext4.txt as shipped with > 2.6.29 and it quite clearly states: > If the filesystem was created with 128 byte inodes, it can be > converted to use 256 byte for greater efficiency via: > > # tune2fs -I 256 /dev/hda1 > > Is this now safe to do? Or should the documentation be updated to > reflect the current corruption issue? Would I be ok to run 'tune2fs -I > 256 /dev/md3' (followed by a forced fsck)? AFAIK it still has dangerous corners... We should probably update the ext4.txt, and TBH I'd rather disable the functionality in e2fsprogs until it's safe. (the case I ran into was when there was not actually enough space to double the size of all the inodes - it did not know this ahead of time and it did not fail gracefully). -Eric