similar to: Effects of Missing ext3 Parameters

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "Effects of Missing ext3 Parameters"

2017 Nov 22
0
error "Not able to add to index" in brick logs
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: ------
2014 Aug 17
0
Re: What uses these 50 GB?
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 >
2023 Dec 18
1
Samba share not quite working on Domain Controller
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
2017 Nov 22
2
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: ------ [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]
2014 Aug 17
2
What uses these 50 GB?
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,
2006 Jan 26
1
Ext3 filesystem access after downgrade from v4.2 to v3.6 [SOLVED]
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
2013 Sep 16
2
Numbers behind "df" and "tune2fs"
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
2006 Feb 23
1
Ext3: Ordered : Fsync question
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
2005 Jun 08
1
clone RHEL 4 ext3 partition
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
2013 Aug 12
6
3TB External USB Drive isn't recognized
We have a 3TB external USB drive that I am trying to attach to some CentOS5 servers. I have tried an older Dell PE1950 and a newer R310 but neither one seems to be able to read the drive. It works no problem on windows servers/workstations and I was able to format with NTFS. I know there are different methods for formatting large disks but this one doesn't even seem to show up as a /dev/
2013 Sep 16
2
Re: Numbers behind "df" and "tune2fs"
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
2005 Sep 20
1
ext3 incompatability between linux 2.4/ppc and linux 2.6/x86
Hi, I'm using ext3 filesystems in embedded devices (storage is on 512Mb or 1Gb CF cards). A typical development cycle would see the filesystem created on the desktop PC running linux 2.4 (eg. RedHat 9). The CF card would be installed in the hardware and linux 2.4 (eg. Montavista Pro 3.1, on PPC) would boot from the CF. Recently I tried a linux 2.6 desktop (CentOS) for the same task and
2007 Feb 17
1
Filesystem won't mount because of "unsupported optional features (80)"
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
2013 Sep 16
0
Re: Numbers behind "df" and "tune2fs"
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
2013 Sep 16
0
Re: Numbers behind "df" and "tune2fs"
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
2009 Jul 08
9
Question about optimal filesystem with many small files.
Hi, I have a program that writes lots of files to a directory tree (around 15 Million fo files), and a node can have up to 400000 files (and I don't have any way to split this ammount in smaller ones). As the number of files grows, my application gets slower and slower (the app is works something like a cache for another app and I can't redesign the way it distributes files into disk due
2006 Dec 06
3
File size differences
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
2013 Sep 17
2
Re: Numbers behind "df" and "tune2fs"
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 given in the "available column" is
2020 Feb 09
5
Provisioning fails - Codebase question
I'm trying to configure an SoC system as an AD DC on Ubuntu 18.04. I was successful on Ubuntu 16.04 a couple of years ago, and the script I used to configure the system from first boot to provisioned fails on 18.04 and 16.04. The failure is thus: Setting up self join set_nt_acl_no_snum: fset_nt_acl returned NT_STATUS_NOT_SUPPORTED. ERROR(runtime): uncaught exception - (-1073741637,
2012 Aug 04
2
resize too large
I have a file system I am trying to resize via resize2fs but I get this error resize2fs 1.41.14 (22-Dec-2010) resize2fs: New size too large to be expressed in 32 bits im on debian squeeze 2.6.32-5-amd64 # pvs ? PV???????? VG????? Fmt? Attr PSize? PFree ? /dev/md1?? vgRAID6 lvm2 a-?? 18.17t 134.12g # lvs ? LV??? VG????? Attr?? LSize? Origin Snap%? Move Log Copy%? Convert ? data1 vgRAID6 -wi-ao