From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:06:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m1HN6XaB029845 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:06:37 -0800 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:06:45 +1100 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: Differences in mkfs.xfs and xfs_info output. Message-ID: <20080217230645.GY155407@sgi.com> References: <20080216074019.GV155407@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Jan Derfinak Cc: David Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 11:41:42PM +0100, Jan Derfinak wrote: > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, David Chinner wrote: > > > had time. The patch below should fix the problem - mkfs.xfs is writing > > the features2 field to the wrong location in the superblock, and > > this patch detects and corrects it. You'll probably see the output: > > I would like to ask if correcting the feature2 field can lead to this > message?: > # xfs_check /dev/system/mnt > sb_fdblocks 190009, counted 191033 > sb_fdblocks 190009, aggregate AGF count 191033 Lazy superblock counters mean that the superblock counters are not kept exactly up to date at all times and hence this can happen if the filesystem was not shut down cleanly. however, when you remount the filesystem, it should recover all of the correct values due to redundant information in the AGF and AGI headers (that's the "aggregate AGF count" above). In the case of a clean shutdown, however, they should be up to date. Is this reproducable with simple tests? e.g. mkfs, mount, unmount check? or doing some simple things like creating some files with dd and rm'ing a subset of the files before unmounting? I've run some simple tests this morning that do this, and I don't see any issues. I'd like to confirm that simple cases are working correctly on your test setup first... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group