From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n52ATBSM091152 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 05:29:11 -0500 Received: from firestarter.dermichi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 016721B419A0 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 03:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from firestarter.dermichi.com (firestarter.dermichi.com [83.64.48.195]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id NSyuUhuko8lR31VM for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A24FEF9.6050309@dermichi.com> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:29:13 +0200 From: Michael Weissenbacher MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: regarding the inode64 mount option References: <4A1E81D8.7010706@dermichi.com> <20090528145612.GA14684@infradead.org> <4A1EAB31.7090604@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <4A1EAB31.7090604@sandeen.net> 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: Eric Sandeen , Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com 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