From: supersud501 Subject: Re: e2fsck (git) on ext4: unsupported feature(s): huge_file Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:53:42 +0200 Message-ID: <47FD02A6.9090708@yahoo.de> References: <47FBB24D.90807@yahoo.de> <47FBBB13.7060501@redhat.com> <47FBCB44.1050500@yahoo.de> <20080408210048.GA16108@mit.edu> <47FC892C.5080000@yahoo.de> <20080409161117.GB26924@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Sandeen , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from n29.bullet.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([87.248.110.146]:47881 "HELO n29.bullet.mail.ukl.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755482AbYDISIi (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2008 14:08:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080409161117.GB26924@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Theodore Tso wrote: > > That patch which I just sent out passes the regression test suite, but > it hasn't been extensively tested for actual *huge* files. > (Specifically, files with the EXT4_HUGE_FILE_FL because they are > larger than 2TB and so i_blocks had to be specified in units of > filesystem blocksize, instead of units of 512 bytes.) > > If you could apply the patch I just sent out and then run "e2fsck -nf > /dev/sdXXX" and let me know you get, that would be much appreciated. > I'll do when the patch arrives in git (or where do i get it from?) > In answer to question of how to determine if you actually *have* any > large files, the simplest thing to do is to use debugfs to temporarily > remove huge_file feature: > > debugfs -w /dev/sdXXX <------- disable the huge_file feature > debugfs: features ^huge_file > debugfs: quit > > e2fsck -nf /dev/sdXXX > > debugfs -w /dev/sdXXX <------- re-enable the huge_file feature > debugfs: features huge_file > debugfs: quit > > If you see error messages about i_blocks values being wrong (with the > huge_file feature disabled), then the inodes that are referenced are > the ones that have the huge_file flag set. > Yeah, i'm getting some (~80) errors about i blocks being wrong (besides errors that a fast symlink has extents_fl set), and the error is always from the type: "i_blocks is x, should be x+8", so it always wants to add 8 to the existing number. is this the mentioned miscalculation? however, as i read in the mail from eric, i didn't know that there is a difference between "large" and "huge" files and apparently meant "large" (>2gb) files. i've got no "huge" (~2TB) files on my drive (and never had). so i wonder why the flag is set on my drive and if the i_blocks errors i get are because of some miscalculation (which shouldn't happen, because i have no huge files, right?) or really are some errors (but it's weird e2fsck wants to set them always to x+8). doesn't make much sense to me yet. oh and: thanks for getting into my problem and trying to help me!