search for: xfs_db

...] 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 fragmentation of the whole filesystem (just for checking): > xfs_db -r /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol04 xfs_db: unexpected XFS SB magic number 0x00000000 xfs_db: read failed: Invalid argument xfs_db: data size check failed cache_node_purge: refcount was 1, not zero (node=0x2a25c20) xfs_db: cannot read root inode (22) THAT output was definitly not there when I did t...

...has released a new xfsprogs SRPM for the XFS project. The following items have changed since the last release of this package: xfsprogs-2.7.3 (29 September 2005) - Fix xfs_repair handling of the morebits bit. - Merge back several kernel changes related to attr2. - Extended xfs_db expert mode commands - Clean up some fsxattr uses to reduce number of syscalls, now that IRIX also supports project identifiers via this interface. xfsprogs-2.7.2 (28 September 2005) - Fix up xfs_repair segmentation fault due to wrong allocation size....

On CentOS 5.3 x86_64, I'm trying to build xfsprogs-2.9.4-1.el5.centos.x86_64 with -ggdb so I can use it with gdb and examine the data structures when using xfs_db. I've installed the src rpm as a non-root user and when I run rpmbuild -bc during the ./configure I get the error: . . . checking uuid.h usability... no checking uuid.h presence... no checking for uuid.h... no checking sys/uuid.h usability... no checking sys/uuid.h presence... no checking for...

...has released a new xfsprogs SRPM for the XFS project. The following items have changed since the last release of this package: xfsprogs-2.7.3 (29 September 2005) - Fix xfs_repair handling of the morebits bit. - Merge back several kernel changes related to attr2. - Extended xfs_db expert mode commands - Clean up some fsxattr uses to reduce number of syscalls, now that IRIX also supports project identifiers via this interface. xfsprogs-2.7.2 (28 September 2005) - Fix up xfs_repair segmentation fault due to wrong allocation size....

...has released a new xfsprogs SRPM for the XFS project. The following items have changed since the last release of this package: xfsprogs-2.7.3 (29 September 2005) - Fix xfs_repair handling of the morebits bit. - Merge back several kernel changes related to attr2. - Extended xfs_db expert mode commands - Clean up some fsxattr uses to reduce number of syscalls, now that IRIX also supports project identifiers via this interface. xfsprogs-2.7.2 (28 September 2005) - Fix up xfs_repair segmentation fault due to wrong allocation size....

Add xfs_info to show the geometry of the xfs filesystem. Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong at cn.fujitsu.com> --- Hi Rich, This patch add xfs_info, and start the xfs support work. I'd like to add the xfs support, like xfs_growfs, xfs_io, xfs_db, xfs_repair etc. Any thoughts? Thanks, Wanlong Gao daemon/Makefile.am | 1 + daemon/xfs.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ generator/generator_actions.ml | 6 ++++ src/MAX_PROC_NR | 2 +- 5 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 2 deleti...

...not mount and will report XFS corruption. If you dig into XFS repair, you can find a UUID mismatch between the superblock and the log. The log always retains the UUID of the original filesystem (the one we tried to replace). Running xfs_repair doesn?t truly repair, it just reports more corruption. xfs_db forcing to remake the log doesn?t help. We can duplicate this with even a QEMU raw image of 50 megabytes. As far as we can tell, XFS is the only filesystem showing this behavior or at least the only one reporting a problem. If we take QEMU out of the picture and create partitions directly on the...

...report XFS corruption. > If you dig into XFS repair, you can find a UUID mismatch between the > superblock and the log. The log always retains the UUID of the > original filesystem (the one we tried to replace). Running xfs_repair > doesn?t truly repair, it just reports more corruption. xfs_db forcing > to remake the log doesn?t help. > ? > We can duplicate this with even a QEMU raw image of 50 megabytes. As > far as we can tell, XFS is the only filesystem showing this behavior > or at least the only one reporting a problem. > ? > If we take QEMU out of the picture a...

...not mount and will report XFS corruption. If you dig into XFS repair, you can find a UUID mismatch between the superblock and the log. The log always retains the UUID of the original filesystem (the one we tried to replace). Running xfs_repair doesn?t truly repair, it just reports more corruption. xfs_db forcing to remake the log doesn?t help. We can duplicate this with even a QEMU raw image of 50 megabytes. As far as we can tell, XFS is the only filesystem showing this behavior or at least the only one reporting a problem. If we take QEMU out of the picture and create partitions directly on the...

Dear All, I am in desperate need for LVM data rescue for my server. I have an VG call vg_hosting consisting of 4 PVs each contained in a separate hard drive (/dev/sda1, /dev/sdb1, /dev/sdc1, and /dev/sdd1). And this LV: lv_home was created to use all the space of the 4 PVs. Right now, the third hard drive is damaged; and therefore the third PV (/dev/sdc1) cannot be accessed anymore. I would like

I'm not so lucky. ALL of mine show 2 links and none have the attr data that supplies the path to the original. I have the inode from stat. Looking now to dig out the path/filename from xfs_db on the specific inodes individually. Is the hash of the filename or <path>/filename and if so relative to where? /, <path from top of brick>, ? On Mon, 2017-10-23 at 18:54 +0000, Matt Waymack wrote: > In my case I was able to delete the hard links in the .glusterfs > folders of th...

...On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not so lucky. ALL of mine show 2 links and none have the attr data > that supplies the path to the original. > > I have the inode from stat. Looking now to dig out the path/filename from > xfs_db on the specific inodes individually. > > Is the hash of the filename or <path>/filename and if so relative to > where? /, <path from top of brick>, ? > > On Mon, 2017-10-23 at 18:54 +0000, Matt Waymack wrote: > > In my case I was able to delete the hard links in the...

...gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm not so lucky. ALL of mine show 2 links and none have the attr > > data that supplies the path to the original. > > > > I have the inode from stat. Looking now to dig out the > > path/filename from xfs_db on the specific inodes individually. > > > > Is the hash of the filename or <path>/filename and if so relative > > to where? /, <path from top of brick>, ? > > > > On Mon, 2017-10-23 at 18:54 +0000, Matt Waymack wrote: > > > In my case I was able...

...gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm not so lucky. ALL of mine show 2 links and none have the attr > > data that supplies the path to the original. > > > > I have the inode from stat. Looking now to dig out the > > path/filename from xfs_db on the specific inodes individually. > > > > Is the hash of the filename or <path>/filename and if so relative > > to where? /, <path from top of brick>, ? > > > > On Mon, 2017-10-23 at 18:54 +0000, Matt Waymack wrote: > > > In my case I was able...

In my case I was able to delete the hard links in the .glusterfs folders of the bricks and it seems to have done the trick, thanks! From: Karthik Subrahmanya [mailto:ksubrahm at redhat.com] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 1:52 AM To: Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com>; Matt Waymack <mwaymack at nsgdv.com> Cc: gluster-users <Gluster-users at gluster.org> Subject: Re: