From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:16:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m0JGGGxY021446 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:16:19 -0800 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id E745B53A8B5 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:16:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id eE414Q8hYSQlSWjh for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:16:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4792223E.7080805@sandeen.net> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:15:58 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Volume too big References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Jan Engelhardt wrote: > Hi, > > > > 16:51 localhost:~ # fdisk -l /dev/md0 > > Disk /dev/md0: 60183.2 GB, 60183225368576 bytes > 2 heads, 4 sectors/track, -1 cylinders > Units = cylinders of 8 * 512 = 4096 bytes > Disk identifier: 0x00000000 > > Disk /dev/md0 doesn't contain a valid partition table > > 16:51 localhost:~ # mkfs.xfs -ff /dev/md0 > meta-data=/dev/md0 isize=256 agcount=55, agsize=268435455 blks > = sectsz=512 attr=0 > data = bsize=4096 blocks=14693170256, imaxpct=25 > = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks, unwritten=1 > naming =version 2 bsize=4096 > log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=32768, version=1 > = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=0 > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 > > 16:51 localhost:~ # strace -e mount mount /dev/md0 /mnt > mount("/dev/md0", "/mnt", "xfs", MS_MGC_VAL, NULL) = -1 E2BIG (Argument > list too long) > mount: Argument list too long > > 16:51 localhost:~ # uname -a > Linux localhost 2.6.23.14-ccj63-regular #1 SMP 2007/10/26 14:17:15 UTC > i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux > > CONFIG_LBD=y. Do I need an extra flag for mkfs? Nope; this is probably that you can't do > 16T on a 32 bit box (core linux restriction, pretty much) dmesg would also yield more information about the cause of the mount failure. (Hm, argument list too long is an interesting result tho...) get an x86_64, I think :) -Eric