similar to: create very large file system

I am trying to get a 9550SX to support a 1.5TB raid partition. I am unsure whether this is a driver problem, or an ext3 problem (as am getting some other wierdness detecting LUNs), but... fdisk recognizes the disk OK. I make a single extended partition with a single 1.5TB logical partition inside it. I then run mke2fs -j /dev/sdb It gets to writing inode tables, and wants to write 11176 block

We have a server with about 6x750Gb SATA drives setup on a hardware RAID controller. We created hardware RAID 5 on these 6x750GB HDDs. The effective size after RAID 5 implementation is 3.4TB. This server we want to use it as a data backup server. Here is the problem we are stuck with, when we use fdisk -l, we can see the drive specs and its size as 3.4TB. But when we want to create two different

Hi list this is actually a problem on a debian system but I thought you might be interested to hear of it and perhaps can offer some help. I have a woody box (dell pe750, dual cpu) running a kernel from backports.org (debian 'testing' packages built on a 'stable' box). The kernel version is 2.6.7-1.backports.org.1. This host is hooked up to an Apple Xserve RAID with a 2.3Tbyte

I've been thinking recently that we should re-enable DIR_INDEX in mke2fs by default. When it first came out, we had done this and were bitten by a few bugs in the code. However, this code has been in heavy use for several thousand filesystem years in Lustre, if not elsewhere, and I'm inclined to think it is pretty safe these days. Likewise, RHEL/FC have had RESIZE_INODE as a standard

Andreas, why is it relevant only in case of RAID5 or RAID6? regards, Martin On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> wrote: > Note that stride and stripe width only make sense for RAI-5/6 arrays. > For RAID-1 it doesn't really matter. > > Cheers, Andreas > >> On Mar 6, 2014, at 13:46, Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> wrote: >>

After a (hardware) crash yesterday, I was unable to boot up due to unrecoverable ide errors (according to the printk()s) when accessing the root filesystem's journal for recovery. Unable to recover, I tried deleting the has_journal option, but that was disallowed given that the needs_recovery flag was set. I saw no way to unset that flag. Unable to access the backups (they were on a fw

We are running Zope behind Squid 2.4Stable6 with squid in acceleration mode. The squid box (dual Pentium III 1 GHz, RH 7.2, Linux 2.4.9-21smp, 2GB Ram) has during busy hours a normal load of 0.2-0.3 . From time to time we see spikes over some hours where the load average of the machine is higher than 1.5 although there are no spikes in the CPU utilization. Also there is no increase in the number

The stripe and stride options do two things: - shift block and inode bitmaps in each group to be on different disks - align the block allocation to the stripe and stride boundaries to avoid read-modify-write in RAID The first one is irrelevant if the flex_bg option is used, since it already packs the bitmaps together and achieves the same effect. The second is meaningless for RAID-1 since

I found a thread that has almost the exact same symptoms as me, but didn't seem to come to a resolution: https://listman.redhat.com/archives/ext3-users/2004-December/msg00018.html I have an LVM(2) array that I've just lvextend'd and want to resize2fs, but I can't get through the e2fsck. I get these errors when fsck-ing: Group 3125's inode table at 102400545 conflicts with

Hi, I noticed that some of my ext3 partitions have a lost+found directory and some do not. Which is correct? mke2fs -j makes the lost+found but after a fresh install of 7.2 there are no lost+found on partitions that were formatted. I want to make them all the same but I am not sure which is correct. I do not plan on going back to ext2 but......... -- ......Tom Dysfunction The Only Consistent

Wow, it takes a really long time to make a 2TB ext2fs. Are there better-than-default options that could be used for a large filesystem? mke2fs 1.34 (25-Jul-2003) Filesystem label= OS type: Linux Block size=4096 (log=2) Fragment size=4096 (log=2) 244203520 inodes, 488382016 blocks 24419100 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=0 14905 block groups 32768 blocks per group,

Hi, I created a RAID1 array of two physical HDD's with chunk size of 64KiB under Debian "wheezy" using mdadm. As a next step, I would like to create an ext3(or ext4) file-system to this RAID1 array using mke2fs utility. According to RAID-related tutorials, I should create the file-system like this: # mkfs.ext3 -v -L myarray -m 0.5 -b 4096 -E stride=16,stripe-width=32 /dev/md0

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:07:22PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > [root@myhost /]# mkfs.ext3 /dev/sda1 > > mke2fs 1.35 (28-Feb-2004) > > First thing I would suggest is to update to a newer version of e2fsprogs, since this one is 9+ years old and that is a lot of > water under the bridge. That's definitely good advice, but even with e2fsprogs 1.35, if e2fsck -f is

Hi, I've been using PxeLinux to boot our Debian kernel successfully for some time now. I recently increased the size of the ramdisk from about 484 MBs to 517 MBs and encountered the following error during bootup: --- RAMDISK: Compressed image found at block 0 Freeing initrd memory: 105519k EXT3-fs: Magic mismatch, very weird! cramfs: wrong magic sh-2021: reiserfs_read_super: can not find

Hi, first of all, apologies if this isn't the right mailing list but it was the best I could find. If you know a better mailing list, please tell me. Today I tried to defrag one of my filesystems. It's a 3.5T large filesystem that has 6 software-raids in the bottom and then merged together using lvm. I was running ext3 but removed the journal flag with thor:~# tune2fs -O ^has_journal

Note that stride and stripe width only make sense for RAI-5/6 arrays. For RAID-1 it doesn't really matter. Cheers, Andreas > On Mar 6, 2014, at 13:46, Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I created a RAID1 array of two physical HDD's with chunk size of 64KiB under Debian "wheezy" using mdadm. As a next step, I would like to create an ext3(or

Hi all, I have a problem with samba : I can create files, but can't create directories. The server has many shares, on seperated disks. We consider two of them : one 2Tb share and one share with more than 7Tb. Samba configuration is good, and works on many other servers, and on this one except for the large share. Permissions are correctly setted up too. I can read/write files and

Hello, I'm writing an application that makes pretty extensive use of extended attributes to store file attributes on Ext2. I used a profiling tool developed by my colleague Nikolai Joukov at SUNY Stony Brook to dig a bit deeper into the performance of my application. In the course of my benchmark, there are 54247 setxattr operations during a 54 seconds. They use about 10.56 seconds of the

Hi all- I corrupted my filesystem by not doing a RTFM first... I got an automated email that the process monitoring the SMART data from my hard drive detected a bad sector. Not thinking (or RTFMing), I did a fsck on my partition- which is the main partition. Now it appears that I've ruined the superblock. I am running Fedora Core 6. I am booting off the Fedora Core 6 Rescue CD in

I recently ran into an issue where I couldn't create a file larger than 2GB on a particular ext3 filesystem. I was under the (mistaken) impression that >2GB support went in before ext3 support, and all ext3 filesystems would therefore support >2GB files on ia32. So, I started poking around and found that some of my ext3 filesystems have the "large_file" feature flag set on