Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system
On 2/28/14, 7:54 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
Dne 28.2.2014 14:37, Chris Murphy napsal(a):
>
> On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> fsadm failed: 3
>>
>
>> man fsadm
>>
>> DIAGNOSTICS
>> On successful completion, the status code is 0. A status code of 2
indicates the operation was interrupted by the user. A
>> status code of 3 indicates the requested check operation could not be
performed because the filesystem is mounted and does
>> not support an online fsck(8). A status code of 1 is used for other
failures.
Ok, granted, I should have read the fsadm manpage. :)
> Yeah but did fsadm fail? No, as a whole its operation succeeded.
> Can we say fsadm failed to run fsck? I guess that's one way to look
> at it, but then it failed to understand it shouldn't request a
> check operation on XFS in the first place.
>
> Chris Murphy
>
Current logic of lvm is to call fsadm to check blockdevice (lvm2 knows nothing about
about filesystems).
fsadm translate this to check xfs - which is not supported by xfs
Well, it failed to check it because it is *mounted*, right? It said this:
> fsadm: Skipping filesystem check for device
"/dev/mapper/VG-LV" as the filesystem is mounted on /mnt
> fsadm failed: 3
extN does the same thing:
# e2fsck /dev/sdb3
e2fsck 1.41.12 (17-May-2010)
/dev/sdb3 is mounted.
e2fsck: Cannot continue, aborting.
# xfs_repair /dev/sdc4
xfs_repair: /dev/sdc4 contains a mounted filesystem
fatal error -- couldn't initialize XFS library
(I've no idea if there ever be support for this operation) - so
fsadm
reports it has failed to do any check.
xfs certainly does have check and repair tools - man xfs_repair.
You can run it with "-n" if you want check-only.
However, I see that (at leat my copy of) fsadm reqiures xfs_check,
which has been deprecated upstream in favor of xfs_repair -n.
xfs_check doesn't scale, and xfs_repair -n performs the same
tasks.
XFS_CHECK=xfs_check
so I guess I should file a bug on that.
lvm2 detects through error code 3 that requested operation is not
supported, but considered safe to be ignore and continues.
Of course fsadm could return 0 - but then it wouldn't be able to
recognize if check really was made or just skipped.
This message is only shown in verbose mode - and it's mainly for
developer to know what has happened (or actually not happened)
Ok, that's fair enough.
Thanks,
-Eric
Zdenek