similar to: Question about optimal filesystem with many small files.

Peter Kjellstr?m wrote: > On Monday 23 January 2006 16:46, Plant, Dean wrote: >> I need to downgrade a system from Centos x4.2 to v3.6 (x86) due to >> performance problems with Arkeia Network Backup and AIT-4 tape >> drives. The backup database is stored on a v4.2 created ext3 >> partition. When accessing this partition after the downgrade, Centos >> complains on

Hi, I'm about to roll out a whole bunch of Redhat Enterprise 4 workstations and have run into problems cloning from the original. Normally I would use ghost (v7.5) because it does a nice job when cloning to a different sized disk.Unfortunately it comes up with read error 29004. Looking around it seems that Symantec don't support Fedora Core 3 (with Ghost v.8 - don't know if v.9 works

Does Fsync of a file on a ext3 fs mounted with "ordered" option(the default) result in flush the dirty data buffers in the fs that correspond to previous transactions. In other words, if I keep writing to file1 (lots of data), log something to file2, keep fsyncing file2 after every write - does this mean file1 data would be committed by fsyncs on file2. Please copy me on your replies

Hello, We have run and stopped by chance command "fsck -y" on one of our raid disks (with ext3 file system). After that we have found that SOME files disappeared (they are not seen in the directories where they have been before). The data are extremely important and contain a lot of programs, scripts for some data analysis and very hard to recover by hands. I have run ''fsck

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

I made a filesystem (mke2fs -j) on a logical volume under kernel 2.6.20 on a 64-bit based system, and when I try to mount it, ext3 complains with EXT3-fs: dm-1: couldn't mount because of unsupported optional features (80). I first thought I just forgot to make the filesystem, so I remade it and the error is still present. I ran fsck on this freshly made filesystem, and it completed with

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

Hello, I have some performance problems in a file server system. It is used as Samba and NFS file server. I have some ideas what might cause the problems, and I want to try step by step. First I have to learn more about these areas. First I have some questions about tuning/sizing the ext3 journal. The most extensive list I found on ext3 performance tuning is

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:16:23 -0500 Mark Foley via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > on Sun Dec 17 12:15:28 2023 Rowland Penny via samba > <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 11:50:18 -0500 > > Mark Foley via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > > > Spindles7, Thanks. my cloning the

Hello, I have 2 boxes with 1.5TB storage with ext3 fs, and the kernel is 2.6.11.8. I'm using E2fsprogs 1.37 for FS creation. And, Filesystem revision #: 1 (dynamic) There are 2 scenarios: 1. All SATA drives, RAID5 2. All PATA drives, RAID5 and wrapped in log volumes. I'm having lots of issues with fsck. I did search, but somehow not getting the right information. needs_recovery

Hey, I have two identical machines setup with a RAID 5 array. One of them is used for failovers and data from the master is synced everyday using rsync to the failover machine. The data on this disks are usually intranet KB's, DB's etc.. The RAID 5 arrays are formatted using the default options i,e mkfs.ext3 /dev/Xda. The RAID controller is 3ware escalade and each disk member in the RAID

Yes indeed it is probably what's going on. what filesystem are you using and what are the mount options? ? Original Message ? From: lists at bago.org Sent: November 22, 2017 4:26 PM To: gluster-users at gluster.org Subject: [Gluster-users] error "Not able to add to index" in brick logs in my /var/log/gluster/bricks/mybrick-path.log I get thousands of those errors: ------

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

Hi, I have two 3TB (hardware RAID-5) ext3 filesystems and recently added 1TB to each. I resized each filesystem and e2fsck -f reports that both are fine. However, when I look at the ext3 parameters with tune2fs -l one seems to have some parameters that the other one doesn't. In particular, one has: "Reserved GDT blocks", "Filesystem created", "Default directory

I have an ext3 filesystem that has several directories and each directory gets a large number of files inserted and then deleted over time. The filesystem is basically used as a temp store before files are processed. The issue is over time the directory scans get extremely slow even if the directories are empty. I have noticed the directories can range in size from 4k - 100M even when they are

in my /var/log/gluster/bricks/mybrick-path.log I get thousands of those errors: ------ [2017-11-22 21:06:23.768354] E [MSGID: 138003] [index.c:624:index_link_to_base] 0-sharedvol-index: /home/sharedvol/.glusterfs/indices/xattrop/0b852dad-b332-4bfe-a38b-976729ee46a2: Not able to add to index [Troppi collegamenti] The message "E [MSGID: 138003] [index.c:624:index_link_to_base]

On 8/17/14, 12:28 PM, Roland Olbricht wrote: > Hello everybody, > > first of all thank you the development of Ext2/3/4. It works like a > charm and makes it possible to base applications on it. > However, "df" says: > > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > ... > /dev/sdc 468346644 409888536 35015532 93% /opt/ssd >

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

These came up on dmesg this morning: attempt to access beyond end of device 09:00: rw=0, want=1635237736, limit=976791680 attempt to access beyond end of device 09:00: rw=0, want=1635237736, limit=976791680 EXT3-fs error (device md(9,0)): ext3_free_blocks: Freeing blocks not in datazone - block = 4293394431, count = 1 attempt to access beyond end of device 09:00: rw=0, want=1930439616,

Hello everybody, first of all thank you the development of Ext2/3/4. It works like a charm and makes it possible to base applications on it. However, now I have the first time where I need more information to understand the behaviour of a ext4 installation on a 480 GB harddisk. It holds a database with a size of 355 GB, as said by "du -m": ... 355263 /opt/ssd However,