Journalled File System general discussion

Sandon Van Ness | 28 May 2012 21:40

JFS Resize Attempt 32.4 TiB -> 37.9 TiB Failed and somewhat hosed file-system

I anticipated possible problems so before even attempting I had copied 
all my data from my 32.4 TiB JFS file-system to my other 76.3 TiB JFS 
file-system. Here is what happened when I tried to expand the file-system.

root <at> dekabutsu: 09:36 AM :/# uname -a
Linux dekabutsu 2.6.39.4-web10g #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Sep 1 09:07:40 PDT 
2011 x86_64 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5530  <at>  2.40GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

sd 0:0:0:3: [sdd] Attached SCSI disk
sd 0:0:0:3: [sdd] 69749987328 512-byte logical blocks: (35.7 TB/32.4 TiB)
sd 0:0:0:3: [sdd] Write Protect is off
sd 0:0:0:3: [sdd] Mode Sense: cb 00 00 08
sd 0:0:0:3: [sdd] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't 
support DPO or FUA
sdd: sdd1
sd 0:0:0:3: [sdd] Attached SCSI disk

# echo 1 > /sys/class/scsi_device/0\:0\:0\:3/device/rescan

sd 0:0:0:3: [sdd] 85374958592 512-byte logical blocks: (43.7 TB/39.7 TiB)
sdd: detected capacity change from 35711993511936 to 43711978799104

root <at> dekabutsu: 09:29 AM :/# parted /dev/sdd
Warning: GNU Parted has detected libreiserfs interface version 
mismatch.  Found 1-1, required 0. ReiserFS support will be disabled.
GNU Parted 2.2
Using /dev/sdd
Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands.
(parted) p
Model: Areca DATA VOLUME (scsi)

(Continue reading)

headers

Christian Kujau | 8 Jun 2012 00:35

Re: JFS Resize Attempt 32.4 TiB -> 37.9 TiB Failed and somewhat hosed file-system

On Mon, 28 May 2012 at 12:40, Sandon Van Ness wrote:
> I anticipated possible problems so before even attempting I had copied 
> all my data from my 32.4 TiB JFS file-system to my other 76.3 TiB JFS 
> file-system. Here is what happened when I tried to expand the file-system.

Out of curiosity (really!): why do people choose JFS for multi TB 
(production?) filesystems?

I'm using JFS myself in various places but since its development is a
one-man-show (thanks, Dave!) I'm not sure I'd choose JFS for
multi-TB-production systems. I thought XFS was the way to go for 
"large and lots"?

Thanks,
Christian.
--

-- 
BOFH excuse #396:

Mail server hit by UniSpammer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/

headers

Per Jessen | 8 Jun 2012 08:18

Re: JFS Resize Attempt 32.4 TiB -> 37.9 TiB Failed and somewhat hosed file-system

Christian Kujau wrote:

> On Mon, 28 May 2012 at 12:40, Sandon Van Ness wrote:
>> I anticipated possible problems so before even attempting I had
>> copied all my data from my 32.4 TiB JFS file-system to my other 76.3
>> TiB JFS file-system. Here is what happened when I tried to expand the
>> file-system.
> 
> Out of curiosity (really!): why do people choose JFS for multi TB
> (production?) filesystems?

Stability and maturity?  Those are/were my primary reasons. 

--

-- 
Per Jessen, Zürich (17.1°C)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Jfs-discussion mailing list
Jfs-discussion <at> lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion