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 o9C1Ps8G039032 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:25:55 -0500 Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id EB5F0EEDB20 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:41:15 -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 TC9qEHDtO2xiL55o for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.53] (gffx.hardwarefreak.com [192.168.100.53]) by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957EC6C121 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:27:00 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4CB3B964.40109@hardwarefreak.com> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:27:00 -0500 From: Stan Hoeppner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: ENOSPC at 90% with plenty of inodes References: <20101008225146.GJ4681@dastard> <20101011223507.GB32255@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20101011223507.GB32255@dastard> 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 Dave Chinner put forth on 10/11/2010 5:35 PM: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 03:03:28PM +0100, James Braid wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 23:51, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> Sounds like fragmented free space. What is the output of: >>> >>> # xfs_db -r -c "freesp -s" >> >> # xfs_db -r -c "freesp -s" /dev/sdb >> from to extents blocks pct >> 1 1 2298052 2298052 40.52 >> 2 3 1568338 3337017 58.84 >> 4 7 8432 35716 0.63 >> 8 15 50 423 0.01 >> total free extents 3874872 >> total free blocks 5671208 >> average free extent size 1.46359 >> >> Which seems to say there are a few tiny pieces of free space >> available? The files that were failing to be written were a few >> hundred bytes in size. > > The error has nothing to do with the size of the files, but > everything to do with being able to allocate more inodes. Inode > allocation requires 4 contiguous blocks (for 256 byte inodes, more > for larger inodes) with alignment constraints. That means when you > run out of 8 block or larger free extents, inode allocation will > start failing and you'll get ENOSPC being reported. > >> We haven't seen any errors so far today, but xfs_fsr ran over the >> weekend, so perhaps I guess it's reorganized the filesystem. > > Only a little. xfs_fsr will not improve fragmented free space > conditions (indeed, it normally fragments free space more). The only > way to reduce the fragmentation of free space is to remove a > significant amount of data and inodes from the filesystem... Hay Dave, would a "backup/reformat/restore" help with free space fragmentation in this case? If so, could/should the OP specify anything during the mkfs.xfs reformat that may help alleviate or mitigate his problem in the future? -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs