From: Valerie Aurora Subject: Re: >16TB issues Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:03:08 -0400 Message-ID: <20090727220308.GV27582@shell> References: <150c16850907021523p25ddae32v2eeea54418d2e6d5@mail.gmail.com> <20090703143729.GJ20343@webber.adilger.int> <150c16850907161104j5e059baep988c5f04a0552c8c@mail.gmail.com> <20090721161018.GH4231@webber.adilger.int> <150c16850907211152y3136aadx6ce42a8535a6ed61@mail.gmail.com> <20090721192123.GK4231@webber.adilger.int> <150c16850907221527l3060aa85h883656bcc7d7e1c4@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Dilger , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Justin Maggard Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:43836 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755126AbZG0WDK (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:03:10 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <150c16850907221527l3060aa85h883656bcc7d7e1c4@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 03:27:24PM -0700, Justin Maggard wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > >> I shouldn't need e2fsprogs to be compiled 64-bit as well, right? > >> Currently I've got a 64-bit kernel with 32-bit userspace. > > > > Yes, that is a potential problem. > > It looks like it certainly is a problem with current e2fsprogs "pu" > branch. My latest findings from basic testing (just mkfs.ext4, then > e2fsck -fy, and -- if e2fsck modified the filesystem -- another e2fsck > -fy) are as follows: > > 1) 64-bit mke2fs + 64-bit e2fsck > Appears to work fine. No errors reported anywhere. > > 2) 64-bit mke2fs + 32-bit e2fsck > Also appears to work fine. llverfs --partial looked okay, and e2fsck > reported no errors. > > 3) 32-bit mke2fs + 64-bit e2fsck > Mkfs.ext4 must have done something wrong, but e2fsck was able to fix > it up, and future e2fsck (32 or 64-bit) runs reported no issues. > e2fsck output was: > Block bitmap differences: +(1063780365--1063780367) > +(1063780381--1063780383) +(1063782048--1063782431) > -(5359140864--5359173631) > Running mkfs through valgrind doesn't show any obvious errors. > > 4) 32-bit mke2fs + 32-bit e2fsck > Same as (3), for the mkfs and the first e2fsck again reported fixing > the same block bitmap differences. But after the first e2fsck was > complete, the second e2fsck run reported: > e2fsck: Superblock invalid, trying backup blocks... > Group descriptor 0 checksum is invalid. Fix? yes > Group descriptor 1 checksum is invalid. Fix? yes > ... > Group descriptor 81774 checksum is invalid. Fix? yes > followed by tons of block bitmap differences. Great, this is really helpful. I've added it to my todo list. -VAL