search for: xfs_bmap

Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "xfs_bmap".

2010 Apr 13
2
XFS-filesystem corrupted by defragmentation Was: Performance problems with XFS on Centos 5.4
Before I'd try to defragment my whole filesystem (see attached mail for whole story) I figured "Let's try it on some file". So I did > xfs_bmap /raid/Temp/someDiskimage.iso [output shows 101 extents and 1 hole] Then I defragmented the file > xfs_fsr /raid/Temp/someDiskimage.iso extents before:101 after:3 DONE > xfs_bmap /raid/Temp/someDiskimage.iso [output shows 3 extents and 1 hole] and now comes the bummer: i wanted to check the...
2013 Jul 03
1
Recommended filesystem for GlusterFS bricks.
Hi, Which is the recommended filesystem to be used for the bricks in glusterFS. ?? XFS/EXT3/EXT4 etc .???? Thanks & Regards, Bobby Jacob Senior Technical Systems Engineer | eGroup P SAVE TREES. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:
2013 Feb 05
1
Destination file a lot larger then source (real size)
I have a script that syncs my backups to an NFS mount every day The script works fine, without any errors, but there is a problem when it comes to some large files Let's take my pst file (8.9 gig) as an example Source: du -hs mypst.pst 8.9G mypst.pst ls -alh mypst.pst -rw-rw---- 1 me me 8.9G Jan 25 17:07 mypst.pst That seems OK Let's do that on the destination: du -hs mypst.pst
2012 Jun 11
3
centos 6.2 xfs + nfs space allocation
Centos 6.2 system with xfs filesystem. I'm sharing this filesystem using nfs. When I create a 10 gigabyte test file from a nfs client system : dd if=/dev/zero of=10Gtest bs=1M count=10000 10000+0 records in 10000+0 records out 10485760000 bytes (10 GB) copied, 74.827 s, 140 MB/s Output from 'ls -al ; du' during this test : -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 429170688 Jun 8 10:13 10Gtest
2009 Sep 08
1
3Ware 9650SE and XFS problems under Centos 5.3
...kernel: Sep 7 21:08:19 backup kernel: Call Trace: Sep 7 21:08:19 backup kernel: [<ffffffff882e1c7e>] :xfs:xfs_free_ag_extent+0x19f/0x67f Sep 7 21:08:19 backup kernel: [<ffffffff882e356b>] :xfs:xfs_free_extent+0xa9/0xc9 Sep 7 21:08:19 backup kernel: [<ffffffff882f02ad>] :xfs:xfs_bmap_finish+0xf0/0x169 Sep 7 21:08:19 backup kernel: [<ffffffff8830de46>] :xfs:xfs_itruncate_finish+0x172/0x2b3 Sep 7 21:08:19 backup kernel: [<ffffffff88326f22>] :xfs:xfs_inactive+0x22e/0x821 Sep 7 21:08:19 backup kernel: [<ffffffff8832dd66>] :xfs:xfs_validate_fields+0x24/0x4b S...
2012 Feb 23
1
default cluster.stripe-block-size for striped volumes on 3.0.x vs 3.3 beta (128kb), performance change if i reduce to a smaller block size?
Hi, I've been migrating data from an old striped 3.0.x gluster install to a 3.3 beta install. I copied all the data to a regular XFS partition (4K blocksize) from the old gluster striped volume and it totaled 9.2TB. With the old setup I used the following option in a "volume stripe" block in the configuration file in a client : volume stripe type cluster/stripe option
2012 Mar 15
2
Usage Case: just not getting the performance I was hoping for
All, For our project, we bought 8 new Supermicro servers. Each server is a quad-core Intel cpu with 2U chassis supporting 8 x 7200 RPM Sata drives. To start out, we only populated 2 x 2TB enterprise drives in each server and added all 8 peers with their total of 16 drives as bricks to our gluster pool as distributed replicated (2). The replica worked as follows: 1.1 -> 2.1 1.2