similar to: resize too large

Hello ext3 list, I am having an odd issue with one of my filesystems, and I am hoping someone here can help out. Yes, I do have backups. :) But as is often the case, it's nice to avoid restoring from backup if possible. If there is a more appropriate place for this question please let me know. After quite a while between reboots, I saw a report on the console that the filesystem was

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

(I'm not subscribed to the list: please keep me in CC) I'm copying files between two samba server using robocopy from a third Windows PC and i'm experiencing disk usage that is much higher on the destination PC. The origin samba server is Debian Lenny with samba 3.2.5. The destination samba server is Debian Wheezy with samba 3.6.9 The PC running robocopy is Windows Server 2003 with

On 10/02/2020 01:24, michael at chameleonoriginals.com wrote: > It is an EspressoBin v7, ext4 filesystem, Ubuntu 18.04.? I encountered > previous failures saying I needed POSIX ALCs enabled, so am using a > 4.4.52 kernel built from source with the EspressoBin required updates > and POSIX ACLs (ext3 and ext4) enabled. > > tune2fs reports > Filesystem features:?????

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

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: ------

Hi, I zero-filled first 10MiB of my SSD(dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=10M count=1). As expected, this wiped my primary GPD header and first partition. Before the wipe, GPT was following: Disk /dev/sda: 250069680 sectors, 119.2 GiB Logical sector size: 512 bytes Disk identifier (GUID): 2EFD285D-F8E6-4262-B380-232E866AF15C Partition table holds up to 128 entries First usable sector is 34, last

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 Dec 18 03:22:32 2023 Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > 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

Hi, I've a question about the max. ext3 FS size. The ext3 FAQ explains that the limit is 4TB. http://batleth.sapienti-sat.org/projects/FAQs/ext3-faq.html | Ext3 can support files up to 1TB. With a 2.4 kernel the filesystem size is | limited by the maximal block device size, which is 2TB. In 2.6 the maximum | (32-bit CPU) limit is of block devices is 16TB, but ext3 supports only up | to 4TB.

Hello Eric, thank you for the quick reply and the explanations. > dumpe2fs -h output might show us that. Filesystem volume name: <none> Last mounted on: /opt/ssd Filesystem UUID: 75d6aae6-1746-4260-994b-148dfdb5af95 Filesystem magic number: 0xEF53 Filesystem revision #: 1 (dynamic) Filesystem features: has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index filetype

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,

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

Guys, I was thrown a cheap OEM-server with a 120 GB SSD and 10 x 4 TB SATA-disks for the data-backup to build a backup server. It's built around an Asus Z87-A that seems to have problems with anything Linux unfortunately. Anyway, BackupPC is my preferred backup-solution, so I went ahead to install another favourite, CentOS 6.4 - and failed. The raid controller is a Highpoint RocketRAID

Hello everyone! I am working on resizing qcow2 images using virt-resize+liguestfs. E.g. I when shrinking a partition, I have to resize filesystem using resize2fs-size. The problem is that I cannot find out minimal partition size (aka resize2fs -P). The only way is calling "resize2fs-size 1K", wait for resize2fs to claim "resize2fs: New size smaller than minimum (510050)"

Hi All: I am trying to resize a centos (5.2) VM drive. I use VMware and I have increased the size of the drive by 40G. I am running resize2fs on /dev/sdb1 (which is my root partition) but when I do I get this error: [root at centos ~]# resize2fs /dev/sdb1 120G resize2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006) The containing partition (or device) is only 19970795 (4k) blocks. You requested a new size of 31457280

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755729 This bug reports that the error message printed by the resize2fs API calls (which comes directly from the resize2fs command) says: Please run 'e2fsck -f /dev/vda1' first. That command is not possible from guestfish (where it would be 'e2fsck-f' or 'e2fsck ... forceall:true'). Fixing that bug caused this bug:

I have a laptop that I put centos 7 on and I started out with a 30gig partition.? I resized the other part of the disk to allow more space for centos.? I then created an unformated partition in the available space,? ran pvcreate /dev/sda4 vgextend lvname /dev/sda4 lvextend -L 184.46G /dev/lvname/root but when I run: sudo resize2fs /dev/lvname/root I get: resize2fs: Bad magic

Consider this section: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO-4.html#ss4.14 I have not done this before and I'm leary about Step 11 which is resizing the filesystem after doing a mkraid command. This howto lacks any ext3 documentation. Some questions I have are: 1. Should I convert back to ext2 on all my filesystems before I do a mkraid? 2. If I leave the system at ext3, will the