From: Michael Weissenbacher <mw@dermichi.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: regarding the inode64 mount option
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:29:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A24FEF9.6050309@dermichi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A1EAB31.7090604@sandeen.net>
Hi Eric + Christoph!
> http://sandeen.net/wordpress/?p=9
This is a scary list indeed! Does this apply only to Fedora on i686 or also to x86_64?
In general, does the inode64 option make sense at all on a partition that is <1TB in size?
> Actually they should still be accessible, we just won't create new
> inodes not addressable by 32bit inode numbers.
Well, in my tests it didn't work. I tried this is on fedora core 6 with vanilla kernel 2.6.28.10 x86_64. See here:
(when mounted without inode64)
[root@mojave ~]# ls /backup/ -lha
ls: cannot access /backup/mojave_gentoo_backup: Invalid argument
total 8.0K
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 99 2009-05-25 18:07 .
drwxr-xr-x 26 root root 4.0K 2009-05-28 17:38 ..
drwxr-xr-x 4 amandabackup disk 51 2009-05-07 15:46 amanda_holdings
?????????? ? ? ? ? ? mojave_gentoo_backup
drwx--x--x 4 root root 41 2009-04-29 11:57 servers
drwxrwxrwt 2 root root 6 2009-06-02 10:38 tmp
[root@mojave ~]# ls /backup/mojave_gentoo_backup -lha
ls: cannot access /backup/mojave_gentoo_backup: Invalid argument
[root@mojave ~]#
(when mounted with inode64)
[root@mojave ~]# ls /backup/ -lha
total 12K
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 99 2009-05-25 18:07 .
drwxr-xr-x 26 root root 4.0K 2009-05-28 17:38 ..
drwxr-xr-x 4 amandabackup disk 51 2009-05-07 15:46 amanda_holdings
drwxr-xr-x 23 root root 4.0K 2009-05-05 10:53 mojave_gentoo_backup
drwx--x--x 4 root root 41 2009-04-29 11:57 servers
drwxrwxrwt 2 root root 6 2009-06-02 10:38 tmp
[root@mojave ~]# ls /backup/mojave_gentoo_backup/ -lha
total 27M
drwxr-xr-x 23 root root 4.0K 2009-05-05 10:53 .
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 99 2009-05-25 18:07 ..
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 10 2009-05-05 11:53 backup
(snipped)
The filesystem is consistent - xfs_check (3.0.1) doesn't report any problems.
thanks,
Michael
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-02 10:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-28 12:21 regarding the inode64 mount option Michael Weissenbacher
2009-05-28 14:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-05-28 15:18 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-06-02 10:29 ` Michael Weissenbacher [this message]
2009-06-02 13:24 ` Felix Blyakher
2009-06-02 16:13 ` Felix Blyakher
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4A24FEF9.6050309@dermichi.com \
--to=mw@dermichi.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox