Re: ext3 issue..

From: Lennart Sorensen (lsorense_at_csclub.uwaterloo.ca)
Date: 04/28/05

  • Next message: Jeff Dike: "Re: [uml-devel] Re: [patch 1/7] uml: fix syscall table by including $(SUBARCH)'s one, for i386" 
    Date:	Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:55:36 -0400
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Davy Durham <pubaddr2@davyandbeth.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>

    On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 04:09:08PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
    > What messages were displayed by e2fsck? What version of the kernel
    > are you running?
    >
    > No, I haven't heard of any such problems with ext2/3 filesystems.
    > This is the first time that someone was reported a specific problem
    > with the # of blocks used accounting. There is the standard "file
    > held open so the number of blocks used is greater than blocks reported
    > by du", but that won't cause df to display negative numbers.

    I think I have seen this once or twice in the past. A reboot always
    made it go away and it didn't seem to come back. fsck never showed
    anything so I assumed it was just the kernel having lost its mind about
    the state of the FS.

    I think I was using 2.4.18 or so at the time I last saw it. It is quite
    a while ago but it was ext3 as well as far as I recall.

    I originally thought my df and company was messed up (since I think I
    have seen a case on sparc where the libc/df were out of sync causing
    weird output).

    I never thought much about it since it didn't seem to be reproduceable
    since it never repeated itself.

    Len Sorensen
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Jeff Dike: "Re: [uml-devel] Re: [patch 1/7] uml: fix syscall table by including $(SUBARCH)'s one, for i386"