[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: linux-xfs
Subject: Re: ls -l versus du -sk after xfs_fsr
From: Ludek Finstrle <luf () pzkagis ! cz>
Date: 2005-09-29 5:44:10
Message-ID: 20050929054410.GA30789 () soptik ! pzkagis ! cz
[Download RAW message or body]
> Well, if you run into this again we'll dig some more :)
I try xfs_fsr again and the problem is back.
> ># xfs_bmap -v Drafts
> >Drafts:
> > EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS
> > 0: [0..151]: 14693632..14693783 7 (13568..13719) 152 00101
>
> 151 * 512 = 77824, so that's fine... bmap reports only 78k used. Not sure
> du is reporting more...
# ls -l Inbox
-rwxrwx--- 1 user group 5038423 Sep 28 15:43 Inbox
# du -b Inbox
1347219456 Inbox
# xfs_bmap -v Inbox
Inbox:
EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS
0: [0..9847]: 58182528..58192375 27 (1559424..1569271) 9848 00111
> if you still have a problematic file around, try xfs_bmap with the -a option.
# xfs_bmap -a Inbox
Inbox:
0: [0..7]: 23962832..23962839
1: [8..8388607]: hole
> Do you happen to still have the xfs_repair output in scrollback somewhere?
Unfortunetelly I haven't. But there were a lot of lines with bad block
count (9 to 12 digits maybe more - corrected e.g. to 2 blocks).
And / for FS was moved to lost+found.
If you are interested in xfs_repair output I can run it again in the
evening (I'm in timezone GMT+2). The problem is on production machine
so I have to wait.
> I suppose we should have checked the attribute fork.... any idea if you're
> using extended attributes?
I use ACL (extended attributes).
# chacl -l Inbox
Inbox [u::rwx,u:user:rwx,g::---,g:group1:rwx,g:group2:rwx,m::rwx,o::---]
Thanks,
Luf
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic