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 o4AE47oa004985 for ; Mon, 10 May 2010 09:04:07 -0500 Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 97E5D1DEA155 for ; Mon, 10 May 2010 07:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (mo-65-41-216-221.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.41.216.221]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lyFs2uyQ7BXQskFa for ; Mon, 10 May 2010 07:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.53] (gffx.hardwarefreak.com [192.168.100.53]) by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2AA6C24B for ; Mon, 10 May 2010 09:06:18 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4BE81368.4030209@hardwarefreak.com> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 09:08:40 -0500 From: Stan Hoeppner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfs and raid5 - "Structure needs cleaning for directory open" References: <20100510022033.GB7165@dastard> <4BE7AD82.90300@gmail.com> <23944308.20100510122203@kaneda.iguw.tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <23944308.20100510122203@kaneda.iguw.tuwien.ac.at> 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: xfs@oss.sgi.com Rainer Fuegenstein put forth on 5/10/2010 5:22 AM: > mark, > > yes, thank you, that looks very much like it. CentOS is still at 5.4, > version 5.5 is long overdue :-( Hi Rainer, You don't have to wait for the next CentOS release. Just grab the source for the latest stable kernel from kernel.org and roll your own. I've been doing so for years with Debian stable in order to avoid problems such as this one you've run into (that and security holes being plugged). I'm running xfsprogs 2.9.8-1lenny1 that shipped with kernel 2.6.26 on top of kernel 2.6.32.9 and haven't had any problems. At least, none so far with mkfs.xfs, mount, xfs_db, or xfs_fsr. I've not had a need for xfs_check, xfs_repair, or other xfs utils. My point being that older xfs tools seem to work fine atop newer kernels. -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs