From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mBLH25MV026301 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:02:05 -0600 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id EC9CC3B430 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id plluWunyhHrZx1oP for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:02:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <494E766B.5080102@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:01:31 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfs_repair problem. References: <7bcfcfff0812210703r4bd889cave8e2d60c56587e3e@mail.gmail.com> <494E66D9.5030704@sandeen.net> <7bcfcfff0812210852v6c1cd522i334de914e1e9a112@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7bcfcfff0812210852v6c1cd522i334de914e1e9a112@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: David Bernick Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com David Bernick wrote: > Thanks for the help so far: > > It my output was from "sb 0". Thanks for reminding me to be explicit. > > The system is a 64-bit system with 32-GB of RAM. It's going through the > FS right now with XFS repair. > Output of xfs_repair says, "arno=3" and about 81.6% of RAM is used by > the process. Think 32 G will be enough to handle this task? > I actually don't KNOW the original error, unfortunately, when growing. I > came into this late. > > We're using repair 2.9.4. Worth getting a more recent version? 2.9.8 had some memory usage improvements (reductions) for repair IIRC > Kernel is - 2.6.18-92.1.1.el5 heh; RHEL5 does not support xfs ;) You probably hit: TAKE 959978 - growing an XFS filesystem by more than 2TB is broken http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-01/msg00053.html I'd see if you can get centos to backport that fix (I assume you're using centos or at least their kernel module; if not you can backport it yourself...) > I "backed off" by vgsplit-ing the new physical device from the original > vgroup, so I was left with my original partition. I am hoping to mount > the original device since the "expanded" fs didn't work. I am hoping > xfs_repair helps that. well, you don't want to take out part of the device if the fs thinks it owns it now, but from the db output I think you still have the smaller size. I'd read through: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-01/msg00085.html and see if it helps you recover. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs