similar to: filesystem

* "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> hat geschrieben: > I hope this is the right list. I have created an ext2 filesystem and > removed the dir_index feature. I don't know if this kind of experimentation > is going to help me learn something about filesystems or not. Well what is > dir_index? Then I ran e2fsck -f -v -pD and the /dev file. Now what did I >

----- Original Message ----- From: "Bodo Thiesen" <bothie@gmx.de> To: <ext3-users@redhat.com> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 8:15 PM Subject: Re: filesystem > Hello Bill. [snip] > You're trying to understand what exactly? From the user point of view, > dir_index just makes directory accesses on very big directories faster. > When creating a new file, or

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

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,

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 >

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

Hi Bodo and Ted, Thank you both for your responses; they confirm what I thought might be the case. Knowing that I can try to proceed with your suggestions. I do have some followup questions for you: On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:05:09PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Unfortunately, there has been a huge number of bug fixes for ext4's > online resize since 2.6.32 and 1.42.11.

Hi all, I issued the commands on a single disk system: with two partitions / is linux sda1 and /home is sda3 yum -y update yum -y install e4fsprogs reboot umount /home tune2fs -O extents,uninit_bg,dir_index /dev/sda3 e2fsck -yfDC0 /dev/sda3 That worked just fine. I then had a different system that is software raid. where / is linux and md0 and /home is md1 yum -y update yum -y

Hi, I enabled dir_index on a filesystem and dumpe2fs -h also reports this. My understanding is that this will be used for newly created directories and that old directories can be indexed using "fsck.ext2 -D". Two questions: - Is there a way to tell is a given directory is indexed or not? - Is there a better way to index the root fs than to boot off a live CD? Best, Norbert

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

I decided that I would try out 2.5.44, and I noticed that htree was merged. If I don't do the tune2fs -O dir_index, and e2fsck -D, the (exisintg) fs won't use htree, right? Once I do the tune2fs and e2fsck, will I still be able to go back to a non-htree kernel if needed? (Will a htree-ized fs work on a non-htree kernel?) I'm guessing that it won't. I've seen a 2.4 htree

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

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: ------

Apologies for the newbie question: I have a (stock) 2.4.20 build (*not* -ac), and I'm trying to work with large ext3 directories. By large, I mean 160,000 files per directory. (Yes, I know it would be better in nested directories but such is life). I feel htree would benefit me. Close reading of the 2.4 changelog suggests that htree isn't in there - only a patch to prevent non-htree

Hi Guys, I am planning on upgrading an existing NFS exported filesystem to the ext3 htree patch on kernel v2.4.23. Will the patch index directories automatically after tune2fs -O dir_index or should I do an e2fsck -Dfy on the filesystem before remounting?

I have an ext3 filesystem that has several directories and each directory gets a large number of files inserted and then deleted over time. The filesystem is basically used as a temp store before files are processed. The issue is over time the directory scans get extremely slow even if the directories are empty. I have noticed the directories can range in size from 4k - 100M even when they are

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]

Hello, How to upgrade existing ext3 partition to new features? Moved from RHEL3 to RHEL4. I had to install from c0d0p6 so partition could not be reformated during install. Thanks, Mindaugas # dumpe2fs /dev/cciss/c0d0p1 | fgrep features dumpe2fs 1.35 (28-Feb-2004) Filesystem features: has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index filetype needs_recovery sparse_super # dumpe2fs

Hi, I've run many time e2fsck, but in a special dir ls tells me: ls: r?cksendung-wlan.dvi: No such file or directory ls: baf?g_r?ckmeldung.latex: No such file or directory ls: finpr?f.pdf: No such file or directory $ cat finpr?f.pdf cat: finpr?f.pdf: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden I don't know what to do? How can I find the failure? If I cat the files with debugfs, I see the

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