From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o8B6srMS189395 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:54:53 -0500 Received: from mail.kickstone.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 3FBF1DBB261 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kickstone.com (87-194-183-70.dsl.cnl.uk.net [87.194.183.70]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id fLXLhGnT1Ww0yNXL for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 79-77-182-194.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com ([79.77.182.194]:50435 helo=[192.168.6.15]) by mail.kickstone.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OuJjO-0002qJ-NY for xfs@oss.sgi.com; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 07:38:34 +0100 Message-ID: <4C8B27E4.2050102@kickstone.com> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 07:55:32 +0100 From: John Lister MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: XFS defragmentation issue References: <4C8A4395.5070702@kickstone.com> In-Reply-To: <4C8A4395.5070702@kickstone.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Stan Hoeppner wrote on 9/10/2010 14:00 >>On 10/09/2010 15:41, John Lister wrote: >> Hi, using ubuntu 9.04, kernel version 2.6.28-18 and xfsprog v2.10.2-1 I'm trying to defragment a drive. If I use xfs_db to check for fragmentation it shows for >>example that a file has 20k+ fragments: >>inode 578505506 actual 23240 ideal 1 >> >>mapping the inode to the file and running xfs_frs states that the file is fully defragmented. >> >>Also running xfs_frs says the drive is defragmented while xfs_db for example reports 300k fragments. >> >>Which is right? and is it possible to defragment the file assuming it is fragmented so badly, if so how? >Try unmounting and remounting the filesystem, and see if the various >tools all report the same thing afterwards. This solved the exact same >problem for me very recently, though I'm on kernel 2.6.34.1 and xfsprogs >2.9.8. Cheers, that got rid of most of it, there is still a slight discrepency (50 extra fragments) which I can live with. John _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs