search for: tune2f

...d to start using ext3. My kernel 2.4.15p9. I downloaded and build util-linux-2.11m and e2fsprogs 1.25. I compiled ext3 in the kernel. I started converting my filesystems and thing went ok for the first few. I then started getting the following on each additional filesystem. [root@joker /root]# tune2fs -j /dev/hdc4 tune2fs 1.25 (20-Sep-2001) Creating journal inode: done This filesystem will be automatically checked every 20 mounts or 180 days, whichever comes first. Use tune2fs -c or -i to override. File size limit exceeded (core dumped) Here is where I started. [root@joker /root]# tune2fs -j...

Hi, I tried to convert my root partition from an ext2 to ext3 fs using tune2fs. I'm running a 2.4.10 kernel with ext3 support, but the partition is not mounted ext3. In fact the journal feature is missing from the superblock: # cat /proc/filesystems | grep ext ext3 ext2 # tune2fs -l /dev/hda6 | grep features Filesystem features: filetype sparse_s...

Hello guys, I have some difficulties to understand what really are the numbers behing "df" and tune2fs. You'll find the output of tune2fs and df below, on which my maths are based. Here are my maths: A tune2fs on an ext3 FS tell me the FS size is 3284992 block large. It also tell me that the size of one block is 4096 (bytes if I'm not wrong?). So my maths tell me that the disk is 3284992...

Thanks for you help. I also tried adding some other informations as you suggest: I can also take into account: - "Reserved block count: XXXXXXX" from tune2fs that gives me the number of blocks reserved for root - Reserved GDT blocks: XXX But I didn't thought about the FS journal. How can I gather information about it? (it's size and any other information?) 2013/9/16 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>: > On 9/16/13 5:16 AM, Nicola...

On 9/16/13 5:16 AM, Nicolas Michel wrote: > Hello guys, > > I have some difficulties to understand what really are the numbers > behing "df" and tune2fs. You'll find the output of tune2fs and df > below, on which my maths are based. > > Here are my maths: > > A tune2fs on an ext3 FS tell me the FS size is 3284992 block large. It > also tell me that the size of one block is 4096 (bytes if I'm not > wrong?). So my math...

On 9/16/13 9:44 AM, Nicolas Michel wrote: > Thanks for you help. I also tried adding some other informations as you suggest: > I can also take into account: > - "Reserved block count: XXXXXXX" from tune2fs that gives me the > number of blocks reserved for root > - Reserved GDT blocks: XXX > > But I didn't thought about the FS journal. How can I gather > information about it? (it's size and any other information?) # dumpe2fs /dev/$YOUR_DEVICE | grep Journal dumpe2fs 1.4...

I have an ext4 filesystem for which I'm trying to use "tune2fs -l". Here is the listing of the filesystem from the "mount" command: # mount | grep share /dev/mapper/VolGroup_Share-LogVol_Share on /share type ext4 (rw,noatime,nodiratime,usrjquota=aquota.user,jqfmt=vfsv0,data=writeback,nobh,barrier=0) When I try to run "tune2fs" on i...

OK. Thanks for the journal information. I thought tune2fs -l and dumpe2fs were the same. In reality it's almost the same but not entirely ^^ I hear you about all the internal mecanisms that make the FS working or give it some features, and I do understand that it takes some place on the disk. However what I don't understand is why the number giv...

tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as tune2fs against ext4. Could this possibly be a machine where uptime has outlived its usefulness? On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Gar...

Not in my testing especially about the time of 6.4. On Apr 22, 2016 5:16 PM, "Gordon Messmer" <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/22/2016 01:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote: > >> tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as >> tune2fs against ext4. >> > > tune2fs operates on the content of a block device. A logical volume > containing an ext4 system is exactly the same as a partition containing an > ext4 filesystem. > > _____...

...oblem forecast. Currently I don't really know which values I should use to do it. (I could use the percentage given by df but it lacks some precisions to make usefull forecasts) 2013/9/17 Nicolas Michel <be.nicolas.michel@gmail.com>: > OK. Thanks for the journal information. I thought tune2fs -l and > dumpe2fs were the same. In reality it's almost the same but not > entirely ^^ > > I hear you about all the internal mecanisms that make the FS working > or give it some features, and I do understand that it takes some place > on the disk. However what I don't und...

...to resize filesystems and inject files to guests. I sincerely hope they don't allow untrusted users to upload guest images / AMIs :-( To fix this I'm looking into adding libguestfs support as an optional backend in OpenStack. The only missing feature in libguestfs is the ability to call tune2fs on a filesystem. This patch series adds tune2fs support. This also reveals a few bugs in the generator when you start to have calls with lots of required and optional parameters. Rich.

The changes since the previous patch: - safe ADD_ARG macro for adding arguments to a fixed size stack array - support for testing functions that return RHashtable, ie. tune2fs-l. - add tests that set (tune2fs) and get (tune2fs-l) various parameters. - only one 'intervalbetweenchecks' parameter (in seconds) Rich.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I created all my ext3 partitions a while back, so the journal.dat file is visable. I'd like to remove them and use the new tune2fs functionality. Can I just mount the drives as ext2, rm journal.dat, tune2fs -j /dev/hd?? and then remount as ext3? Or am I missing something? thanks! - -- Douglas J. Hunley (Linux User #174778) http://hunley.homeip.net/ http://linux.nf/ ~~ Now offering NO COST Linux admin services for the home...

Hi, Is it safe to run tune2fs -c -1 -i 0 /dev/sda2 on mounted file system Basically, this is a command to disable fsck based on reboot count & last fsck time. -- Regards, Sherin

Erm, sheez having alot of problems :( I have just been reading all the archives on the mailing list for the past few hours and decided to try make the journal with: tune2fs -j -J10 /dev/hdc1 [root@tkw /]# tune2fs -j -J10 /dev/hdc1 tune2fs 1.20-WIP, 17-Jan-2001 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 Creating journal inode: done [root@tkw /]# cat /etc/fstab /dev/hdc1 /usr/local ext3 defaults 0 0 [root@tkw /]# mount /dev/hdc1 mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on...

I am using SuSE 7.3 compiled ext3 support into the kernel and installed it. All my partitions load up as ext3 except / . I ran tune2fs several times, still doesn't take on the / drive. Most recent dumpe2fs -h show no features on that drive=, I keep going around in circles, removing .journal from / and running tune2fs but it never works for / What am I doing wrong? ( thanks in advance) joe I have tried several times...

Just now I ran tune2fs -j on the root filesystem of a box running 2.6.0-test8. Then I edited /etc/fstab and changed the FS type to from ext2 to ext3, saved the file, and invoked vim on the file again. A few moments after this, the box hung. Unfortunately X was running at the time, and so I don't have any messages...

...work (4m20s from power to prompt) but I took quite a few tries. Problems: - I have had e2fsck tell me, at least twice, JFS: recovery pass 2 ended at transaction xxx, expected yyy where xxx was several less than yyyy. In one case, xxx was 12, yyy was 14. - After the e2fsck fails, "tune2fs -l" on the journal device shows much the same superblock as on the main device. Normally it fails to find a superblock on the journal device. - e2fsck will not progress if the journal device is bad (e.g. when the super block is wrong as above). I cannot say 'Ignore the journa...

uptime=insecurity. Patches must be kept up these days or your uptime won't matter when your server gets compromised. On 4/22/2016 4:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote: > tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as > tune2fs against ext4. > > Could this possibly be a machine where uptime has outlived its usefulness? > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue...