On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> PERC 700 controller that has a virtual drive configured as a RAID 5 with 15
> disks in it. We're running CentOS 5.10 at the moment, and I created a 15Tb
> ext3 filesystem on that RAID group (set this up a few years back) that has
> been
From: Gordon Messmer [mailto:gordon.mess...@gmail.com]
On 04/22/2016 05:44 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> However I cannot use any of the superblocks it seems:
It was always unlikely that whatever damaged the first block did not damage the
rest of the array. At this point, I think you have suffi
On 04/22/2016 05:44 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
However I cannot use any of the superblocks it seems:
It was always unlikely that whatever damaged the first block did not
damage the rest of the array. At this point, I think you have
sufficient evidence that restoring from backups is the way f
From: Weiner, Michael [mailto:wein...@ccf.org]
From: Gordon Messmer [mailto:gordon.mess...@gmail.com]
On 04/21/2016 10:08 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>> mkfs.ext3 -F -b 4096 -n /dev/sdb1
>> >Note that I don't have a CentOS 5 system around for testing, and I don't
>> >know what mixing -F and -n
From: Gordon Messmer [mailto:gordon.mess...@gmail.com]
On 04/21/2016 10:08 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>> mkfs.ext3 -F -b 4096 -n /dev/sdb1
>> >Note that I don't have a CentOS 5 system around for testing, and I don't
>> >know what mixing -F and -n does.
> Yeah I was a little nervous about that, a
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gordon Messmer
wrote:
> On 04/21/2016 10:08 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>>>
>>> mkfs.ext3 -F -b 4096 -n /dev/sdb1
>>> >Note that I don't have a CentOS 5 system around for testing, and I don't
>>> > know what mixing -F and -n does.
>>
>> Yeah I was a little nervous a
On 04/21/2016 10:08 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
mkfs.ext3 -F -b 4096 -n /dev/sdb1
>Note that I don't have a CentOS 5 system around for testing, and I don't know
what mixing -F and -n does.
Yeah I was a little nervous about that, and as such, I didn’t try it:)
because the flags are also counte
On 04/21/2016 09:44 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
On 04/20/2016 11:38 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
[root@raos_apps01 ~]# cat /proc/partitions major minor #blocks name
8 0 976224256 sda
8 1 104391 sda1
8 2 976117432 sda2
816 14643363840 sdb
81
From: Samuel Sieb [mailto:sam...@sieb.net]
On 04/21/2016 09:44 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> From: Samuel Sieb [mailto:sam...@sieb.net]
>
> On 04/21/2016 05:46 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>> From: Samuel Sieb [mailto:sam...@sieb.net]
>>
>> [root@raos_apps01 ~]# file -s /dev/sdb1
>> /dev/sdb1: data
On 04/21/2016 09:44 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
From: Samuel Sieb [mailto:sam...@sieb.net]
On 04/21/2016 05:46 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
From: Samuel Sieb [mailto:sam...@sieb.net]
[root@raos_apps01 ~]# file -s /dev/sdb1
/dev/sdb1: data
[root@raos_apps01 ~]# file -s /dev/sdc1
/dev/sdc1: SGI XFS
From: Gordon Messmer [mailto:gordon.mess...@gmail.com]
> On 04/21/2016 05:46 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>> Bad:(
>>
>> [root@raos_apps01 ~]# file -s /dev/sdb1
>> /dev/sdb1: data
>
> https://access.redhat.com/solutions/1532
thank you for this link
> As Chris Murphy noted, ext3 filesystems larger
On 04/21/2016 05:46 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
Bad:(
[root@raos_apps01 ~]# file -s /dev/sdb1
/dev/sdb1: data
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/1532
As Chris Murphy noted, ext3 filesystems larger than 8TB were not
supported in the initial release of CentOS 5.0, and may have required
the -F
From: Samuel Sieb [mailto:sam...@sieb.net]
On 04/21/2016 05:46 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> From: Samuel Sieb [mailto:sam...@sieb.net]
>
> On 04/20/2016 11:38 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>> [root@raos_apps01 ~]# cat /proc/partitions major minor #blocks name
>>
>> 8 0 976224256 sda
>>
On 04/21/2016 05:46 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
From: Samuel Sieb [mailto:sam...@sieb.net]
On 04/20/2016 11:38 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
[root@raos_apps01 ~]# cat /proc/partitions major minor #blocks name
8 0 976224256 sda
8 1 104391 sda1
8 2 976117432 sda2
From: ch...@colorremedies.com [mailto:ch...@colorremedies.com] On Behalf Of
Chris Murphy
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>
>
> [root@raos_apps01 ~]# mke2fs -n /dev/sdb1 mke2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006)
> mke2fs: Filesystem too large. No more than 2**31-1 blocks
> (8TB
From: Samuel Sieb [mailto:sam...@sieb.net]
On 04/20/2016 11:38 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> [root@raos_apps01 ~]# cat /proc/partitions major minor #blocks name
>
> 8 0 976224256 sda
> 8 1 104391 sda1
> 8 2 976117432 sda2
> 816 14643363840 sdb
> 817
On 04/20/2016 02:04 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Related. -j isn't the same as mkfs.ext3 I guess, at least not with
such old progs.
tl;dr, best to use mkfs.ext3, mkfs.ext4, etc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=594777
Interesting. I've usually just used mke2fs -j. From the man page:
-j
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Chris Murphy
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>>
But then the eftools complain and don’t work properly,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>
>>>
>>> But then the eftools complain and don’t work properly, example
>>>
>>> [root@raos_apps01 ~]# mke2fs -n /dev/sdb1
>>> mk
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>>
>> But then the eftools complain and don’t work properly, example
>>
>> [root@raos_apps01 ~]# mke2fs -n /dev/sdb1
>> mke2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006)
>
> There's the problem. Why are you us
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> From: ch...@colorremedies.com [mailto:ch...@colorremedies.com] On Behalf Of
> Chris Murphy
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>> From: ch...@colorremedies.com [mailto:ch...@colorremedies.com] On
>> Behalf Of Chri
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
>> On 04/20/2016 12:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> I'm assuming he'll continue to use -n because if he doesn't it's toast.
> Oh, good point, I missed that! :-)
Yes, thank you !
===
Please consider the environ
On 04/20/2016 12:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
I'm assuming he'll continue to use -n because if he doesn't it's toast.
Oh, good point, I missed that! :-)
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/us
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 04/20/2016 12:15 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [root@raos_apps01 ~]# mke2fs -n /dev/sdb1
>>> mke2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006)
>>> mke2fs: Filesystem too large. No more than 2
On 04/20/2016 12:15 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
[root@raos_apps01 ~]# mke2fs -n /dev/sdb1
mke2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006)
mke2fs: Filesystem too large. No more than 2**31-1 blocks
(8TB using a blocksize of 4k) are currently supported.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>
>
> [root@raos_apps01 ~]# mke2fs -n /dev/sdb1
> mke2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006)
> mke2fs: Filesystem too large. No more than 2**31-1 blocks
> (8TB using a blocksize of 4k) are currently supported.
Sounds like it's creating ext2 by defa
On 04/20/2016 11:38 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
[root@raos_apps01 ~]# cat /proc/partitions
major minor #blocks name
8 0 976224256 sda
8 1 104391 sda1
8 2 976117432 sda2
816 14643363840 sdb
817 14643362847 sdb1
832 42971168768 sdc
833
From: ch...@colorremedies.com [mailto:ch...@colorremedies.com] On Behalf Of
Chris Murphy
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> From: ch...@colorremedies.com [mailto:ch...@colorremedies.com] On
> Behalf Of Chris Murphy
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Weiner, Michael w
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> From: ch...@colorremedies.com [mailto:ch...@colorremedies.com] On Behalf Of
> Chris Murphy
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>
>>> Because I believe that I built the 15Tb filesystem for ext3 using 8K
>>> blocks
From: ch...@colorremedies.com [mailto:ch...@colorremedies.com] On Behalf Of
Chris Murphy
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>
>> Because I believe that I built the 15Tb filesystem for ext3 using 8K blocks
>> when I s
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>
>> Because I believe that I built the 15Tb filesystem for ext3 using 8K blocks
>> when I set this up several years back
>
> What platform was it created on and has been used on unti
From: ch...@colorremedies.com [mailto:ch...@colorremedies.com] On Behalf Of
Chris Murphy
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>> Because I believe that I built the 15Tb filesystem for ext3 using 8K
>> blocks when I set this up several years back
> What platform was it crea
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> Because I believe that I built the 15Tb filesystem for ext3 using 8K blocks
> when I set this up several years back
What platform was it created on and has been used on until now?
At least XFS, ext4, and Btrfs right now can't mount fil
From: ch...@colorremedies.com [mailto:ch...@colorremedies.com] On Behalf Of
Chris Murphy
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> I have a Dell PowerEdge R910 with a PERC 700 controller that has a virtual
> drive configured as a RAID 5 with 15 disks in it. We're running CentOS
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> I have a Dell PowerEdge R910 with a PERC 700 controller that has a virtual
> drive configured as a RAID 5 with 15 disks in it. We're running CentOS 5.10
> at the moment, and I created a 15Tb ext3 filesystem on that RAID group (set
> this
From: Gordon Messmer [mailto:gordon.mess...@gmail.com]
On 04/20/2016 05:33 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> I received the following error:
>
> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdb1,
# dd if=/dev/sdb1 bs=1k count=1 skip=1 | od -h ...
060 a851 570e 0044 ef53 0001 0001
From: Samuel Sieb [mailto:sam...@sieb.net]
On 04/20/2016 10:07 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> From: Rick Stevens
>
> On 04/20/2016 09:32 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>> I think the concept here is that you ADDED a controller to the system.
>> This can cause the system to enumerate the bus differently
On 04/20/2016 05:33 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
I received the following error:
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdb1,
# dd if=/dev/sdb1 bs=1k count=1 skip=1 | od -h
...
060 a851 570e 0044 ef53 0001 0001
...
"ef53" is a signature for ext3 filesystems. Do
On 04/20/2016 10:07 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
From: Rick Stevens
On 04/20/2016 09:32 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
I think the concept here is that you ADDED a controller to the system.
This can cause the system to enumerate the bus differently so your old,
existing array may now be /dev/sda or
From: Rick Stevens
On 04/20/2016 09:32 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>> From: Gordon Messmer
>>
>>> On 04/20/2016 05:33 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
I had the opportunity to add another PERC H810 controller along with a
PowerVault MD1200 to add more space ... when the server came up and I
>
On 04/20/2016 09:32 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
From: Gordon Messmer
On 04/20/2016 05:33 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
I had the opportunity to add another PERC H810 controller along with a
PowerVault MD1200 to add more space ... when the server came up and I tried to
mount it, I received the fo
From: Gordon Messmer
> On 04/20/2016 05:33 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
>> I had the opportunity to add another PERC H810 controller along with a
>> PowerVault MD1200 to add more space ... when the server came up and I tried
>> to mount it, I received the following error:
>>
>> mount: wrong fs typ
On 04/20/2016 05:33 AM, Weiner, Michael wrote:
I had the opportunity to add another PERC H810 controller along with a
PowerVault MD1200 to add more space ... when the server came up and I tried to
mount it, I received the following error:
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /de
I have a Dell PowerEdge R910 with a PERC 700 controller that has a virtual
drive configured as a RAID 5 with 15 disks in it. We're running CentOS 5.10 at
the moment, and I created a 15Tb ext3 filesystem on that RAID group (set this
up a few years back) that has been running fine up until yesterd
44 matches
Mail list logo
