[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Many orphaned inodes after resize2fs

2014-04-19 17:48 GMT+02:00 Theodore Ts'o <tytso mit edu>:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 05:42:12PM +0200, Patrik Horník wrote:
> Please confirm that this is fully correct solution (for my purpose, not
> elegant clean way for official fix) and it has no negative consequences. It
> seems that way but I did not analyze all code paths the fixed code is in.

Yes, that's a fine solution.  What I'll probably do is disable the
check if s_inodes_count is greater than s_mkfs_time minus some fudge
value, or if the broken system clock boolean is set.

> BTW were there any other negative consequences of this bug in e2fsck except
> changing i_dtime of inodes to current time?

Nope, that would be the only consequence --- if you don't the system
administrator's anxiety that was induced by the false positive!

Indeed it was no fun first couple of hours until I confirmed that data seem OK by comparing some of it to backup :)

From now on we will resize and fsck fs only with backup LVM snapshots. How much data is approximately overwritten / moved when resizing fs?
Thanks for pointing out this problem.  I'll make sure it gets fixed in
the next maintenance release of e2fsprogs.

                                        - Ted
Thanks for your prompt assistance.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]