[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100325015503.GJ2159@thunk.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:55:03 -0400
From: tytso@....edu
To: Evgeniy Ivanov <lolkaantimat@...il.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext2/ext3 different block_sizes/i_size/e2fsck question
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:27:24PM +0300, Evgeniy Ivanov wrote:
>
> Sorry for bothering list with my ext2 questions.
> I got into trouble with my ext2 implementation and filesystem with
> 1024 block size. Sometimes when I write files they're written
> correctly (md5sum is the same as original, i_size is correct either),
> but e2fsck changes i_size to another values (which breaks files). E.g.
> 67445000->67446784 or 67445248->67446784. I see that new sizes are
> numbers of multiples of 1024.
> Strange thing is that I can't reproduce this problem with 2048 and
> 4096 block sizes. I thought the problem was in trash in unused part of
> last block (actually it is zeroed), but then it would be reproduceable
> in fs with another block size.
E2fsck will adjust i_size if it is smaller than the number of blocks
than you have allocated. So in the case of 67445000->67446784, your
file probably had 65866 1k blocks, and since 67445000 is less than
(655865*1024)+1, e2fsck assumed that your i_size was wrong, and so it
asked for permission to fix it.
Put another way, if you have 2 blocks in 1k file, and i_size is 1024,
it clearly must be wrong. If it's 1025, maybe we're only using 1 byte
in the last block; but if i_size is less than or equal to 1024, then
why was the 2nd block allocated in the file in the first place?
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists