similar to: core dumped messages from tune2fs

Sorry, this is going to be a rather long post...Here's the situation; I have 4 IDE disks from an old snap server which fails to mount the raid array. We believe there is a controller error on the SNAP so we've put them in another box running CentOS 5 and can see the disks OK. hda thru hdd looks like this Disk /dev/hdd: 185.2 GB, 185283624960 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 22526

Hi, I tried to convert my root partition from an ext2 to ext3 fs using tune2fs. I'm running a 2.4.10 kernel with ext3 support, but the partition is not mounted ext3. In fact the journal feature is missing from the superblock: # cat /proc/filesystems | grep ext ext3 ext2 # tune2fs -l /dev/hda6 | grep features Filesystem features: filetype sparse_super # ls -l /.journal

Hi, After mounting -t ext2 an ext3 partition, working with, do I have to recreate .journal when I remount the partition as ext3 ? Thanks ! Liu

I have an ext4 filesystem for which I'm trying to use "tune2fs -l". Here is the listing of the filesystem from the "mount" command: # mount | grep share /dev/mapper/VolGroup_Share-LogVol_Share on /share type ext4 (rw,noatime,nodiratime,usrjquota=aquota.user,jqfmt=vfsv0,data=writeback,nobh,barrier=0) When I try to run "tune2fs" on it, I get the following error:

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

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

Not in my testing especially about the time of 6.4. On Apr 22, 2016 5:16 PM, "Gordon Messmer" <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/22/2016 01:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote: > >> tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as >> tune2fs against ext4. >> > > tune2fs operates on the content of a block device. A logical volume

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

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

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

greetings. i have been three days now trying to add ext3 to an existing suse-7.3 machine. i am using suse's own 2.4.13 kernel source. here is what i have done: following install, i ran tune2fs -j /dev/hda2 (also hda3 and hda4). .journal files were created on each partition, apparently uneventfully. wishing to avoid ai irreversable situation, i initially edited /etc/fstab thusly:

tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as tune2fs against ext4. Could this possibly be a machine where uptime has outlived its usefulness? On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Garman <matthew.garman at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > ># rpm -qf `which

'df' doesn't report my root partition, but does report my /boot partition when both are mounted with <type> auto. But when mounted with <type> ext3, both partitions are reported. Details: The system has mount-2.11m, tune2fs-1.25 and df (fileutils) 4.1 I just created an ext3 fs on a new Debian Woody install initially running linux-2.2.19 on ext2, but upgraded to

Hi, Is it safe to run tune2fs -c -1 -i 0 /dev/sda2 on mounted file system Basically, this is a command to disable fsck based on reboot count & last fsck time. -- Regards, Sherin

Just now I ran tune2fs -j on the root filesystem of a box running 2.6.0-test8. Then I edited /etc/fstab and changed the FS type to from ext2 to ext3, saved the file, and invoked vim on the file again. A few moments after this, the box hung. Unfortunately X was running at the time, and so I don't have any messages to cite. Is this a known problem?

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

Hello, I just noticed that 'tune2fs -l' did not returned a "lively" updated information regarding the free inodes count (looks like it's always correct after unmounting). It became suprising after an online resizing operation, where the total inode count was immediatly updated (grown in my case) but the free inode count was the same: one could deduce that suddenly a lot of

In fact the thing I really want to achieve is to be able to find the values and the algorithm that enable me to reproduce the percentage given by df (and to understand deeply what it means). Why do I need it? Because I'm trying to write some script to do capacity planning and space problem forecast. Currently I don't really know which values I should use to do it. (I could use the

On Sat, April 30, 2016 8:54 am, William Warren wrote: > uptime=insecurity. This sounds like MS Windows admin's statement. Are there any Unix admins still left around who remember systems with kernel that doesn't need [security] patching for few years? And libc that does not need security patches often. I almost said glibc, but on those Unixes it was libc; glibc, however, wasn't

At the moment OpenStack uses kpartx and nbd to resize filesystems and inject files to guests. I sincerely hope they don't allow untrusted users to upload guest images / AMIs :-( To fix this I'm looking into adding libguestfs support as an optional backend in OpenStack. The only missing feature in libguestfs is the ability to call tune2fs on a filesystem. This patch series adds tune2fs