From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n4T6aw1g036501 for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 01:37:00 -0500 Received: from mailsrv1.zmi.at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 880C71300EBF for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 23:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv1.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.162.198]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id bxng5C8rDYfxewP1 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 23:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv2.i.zmi.at (h081217106033.dyn.cm.kabsi.at [81.217.106.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mailsrv2.i.zmi.at", Issuer "power4u.zmi.at" (not verified)) by mailsrv1.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51EEE10D1 for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 08:37:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from saturn.localnet (saturn.i.zmi.at [10.0.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailsrv2.i.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AEC540DC06 for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 08:37:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Monnerie Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfsprogs: add xfs_reno(8) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:37:06 +0200 References: <20090528151804.GA31976@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20090528151804.GA31976@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200905290837.11098@zmi.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0756524896186902661==" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com --===============0756524896186902661== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1395188.s3BalkoJBi"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart1395188.s3BalkoJBi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Donnerstag 28 Mai 2009 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The Linux port of xfs_reno When used, does it move inodes on disk, or just change the numbers? Because there seems to be still danger on inode64, would it be worth to=20 sometimes run xfs_reno to get most files back to inode32, but still=20 mount with inode64? I know this would create big inodes again, but at=20 least old data would be safe. mfg zmi =2D-=20 // Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at // Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 .network.your.ideas. // PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg --import" // Fingerprint: AC19 F9D5 36ED CD8A EF38 500E CE14 91F7 1C12 09B4 // Keyserver: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net Key-ID: 1C1209B4 --nextPart1395188.s3BalkoJBi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkofgpcACgkQzhSR9xwSCbSsowCgw5cWr/ZSqv8FtG7z7hEieLBQ 1mAAn37xVA+EfhR5PKj/58lgOWtnCDYI =pX1q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1395188.s3BalkoJBi-- --===============0756524896186902661== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs --===============0756524896186902661==--