Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-28 Thread Zdenek Kabelac
Dne 28.2.2014 15:12, Eric Sandeen napsal(a): 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 wrote: fsadm failed: 3 man fsadm DIAGNOSTICS On successful completion, the status code is 0.

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-28 Thread Eric Sandeen
On 2/28/14, 8:12 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > However, I see that (at least my copy of) fsadm requires 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

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-28 Thread Eric Sandeen
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 wrote: >> >> > fsadm failed: 3 >>> >> >>> man fsadm >>> >>> DIAGNOSTICS >>>On successful completion, the status code is 0. A status code of

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-28 Thread Zdenek Kabelac
Dne 28.2.2014 14:37, Chris Murphy napsal(a): On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Zdenek Kabelac 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

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-28 Thread Chris Murphy
On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Zdenek Kabelac 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 ch

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-28 Thread Zdenek Kabelac
Dne 28.2.2014 00:02, Eric Sandeen napsal(a): On 2/27/14, 4:40 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -0500, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: A question I have is XFS wor

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-27 Thread James Harshaw
Haha! Error: stuff happened. On Feb 27, 2014 6:02 PM, "Eric Sandeen" wrote: > On 2/27/14, 4:40 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Chris Murphy > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jochen Schmitt > wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -050

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-27 Thread Eric Sandeen
On 2/27/14, 4:40 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -0500, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: A question I have is XFS worth it? >>> >>> I have done so

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-27 Thread James Harshaw
So far my small of research shows it isn't that big of a problem. We should look more into it thought. On Feb 27, 2014 5:41 PM, "Chris Murphy" wrote: > > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-27 Thread Chris Murphy
On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -0500, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: >>> A question I have is XFS worth it? >> >> I have done some testing with RHEL 7 Beta which use XFS as a defa