similar to: clone RHEL 4 ext3 partition

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

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

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

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

Hi, I've installed a few Fedora Core 4 and Fedora Core 5 recently, and found that the new ext3 file systems created with new mkfs.ext3(1.38+) has one more field than EXT3 created with old mkfs.ext3(1.34-), even the latter's dir_index feature was turned on and file systems were upgraded with "e2fsck -y -f -D" command. I have three questions thereafter: 1) what does the

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

I have been playing with external journals some more and thought I should share some experiences. I am running 2.4.16 with the ext3 patches from Andrew Morton and e2fsprogs 1.25 I have an ext3fs filesystem on an 8 drive RAID5 array and place the journal on a partition of the mirrored pair that I boot off (all drives SCSI). I have tried pulling the power cable and seeing what happens. I finally

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, As a Virtuozzo users we have majority of our diskspace formatted with -i 1024 -b 1024. Lately I discovered that on CentOS 4.6 ext2online barfs when I try to grow such filesystem. Running it with -v -d, it prints lots of lines like: ext2online v1.1.18 - 2001/03/18 for EXT2FS 0.5b ext2online: 873646830 is a bad size for an ext2 fs! rounding down to 873644033 ... group NNN inode table has

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

Hi, it seems you got it right! I don't know if you read email I sent you before posting to the mailing list, but I accidentally diagnosed the cause... :) I've noticed that inodes fsck warned me about, at least ones that I checked, all have all four timestamps latest in 2010... The filesystem has maximum 1281998848 inodes, which is timestamp in august 2010. I don't know how it got

Hello, yesterday I experienced following problem with my ext3 filesystem: - I had ext3 filesystem of the size of a few TB with journal. I correctly unmounted it and it was marked clean. - I then ran fsck.etx3 -f on it and it did not find any problem. - After increasing size of its LVM volume by 1.5 TB I resized the filesystem by resize2fs lvm_volume and it finished without problem. - But

I've Found a page with interesing discussion about images backup http://forums.fedoraforum.org/archive/index.php/t-28255.html This give a "dirty" solucion for remove special thing of ext3 (Selinux remove resize_inode and ext_attr features) witch cause the error in ghost. I hope somebody help with the problem of norton ghost and clone centos 4. :) ----------- sfabkk 2005-07-11,

Hi all, I want to setup a linux workstation with FC4 and with all the partitions (except for /boot) under LVM to be able to resize them in future. I don't need online resizing, I can shutdown the system and reboot with the rescuecd when needed. I have done some test on this configuration and I have sverals doubts: If i format a partition with the resize_inode feature enabled and I resize it

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

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

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

Hi. I'm attempting to setup a box here to be a file-server for all my data. I'm attempting to resize an ext3 partition to demonstrate this capability to myself before fully committing to this system as the primary data storage. I'm having some problems resizing an ext3 filesystem after I've resized the underlying logical volume. Following the ext3 resize, fsck spits out lots

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

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 06:56:57PM +0200, Patrik Horn?k wrote: > > yesterday I experienced following problem with my ext3 filesystem: > > - I had ext3 filesystem of the size of a few TB with journal. I correctly > unmounted it and it was marked clean. > > - I then ran fsck.etx3 -f on it and it did not find any problem. > > - After increasing size of its LVM volume by