linux-ext4 - Re: tune2fs can't be used on a mounted ext4, or...?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110410035005.64f565e3@natsu>
Date:	Sun, 10 Apr 2011 03:50:05 +0600
From:	Roman Mamedov <rm@...anrm.ru>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tune2fs can't be used on a mounted ext4, or...?

On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 15:30:42 -0600
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> wrote:

> The online resize shouldn't take more than a few minutes, unless the disk is
> crazy busy and you are going from 16GB to 16TB or something.

I was resizing from 4 TB to 6 TB, and during the time (okay, maybe it was just
an hour) I saw disk free space slowly increase at about 1 GB per couple of
seconds. RAID6 also was in a degraded state (one disk missing), so maybe
that's why it was slower than it should usually be.

> > Then I started copying files from another array to the one on which the
> > above operations were conducted. I did:
> > 
> >  cp -Rp /mnt/array1/data/* /mnt/array2/new-data/
> 
> What kernel version do you have, and what version of coreutils?  Is this
> perhaps a bleeding-edge kernel/coreutils with the "FIEMAP" bug?

Kernel version 2.6.38.2, cp (GNU coreutils) 8.5.

Also, what I didn't mention in my previous post, is that during that session I
also had one E-Mail message which was just received by the mail client (not
copied from another disk via cp or otherwise) truncate too. The mail client is
claws-mail and it stores individual messages on disk as regular files, a file
per message, and that one file was 0 bytes in size. At first I didn't think it
was related, but it looks like all disk access is/was affected, not just
cp/coreutils.

> Were the source files that had problems recently written themselves in this
> case?

Recently, as in "while on 2.6.38x kernels", or "in the past N minutes"?
Latter - definitely not (except for that one E-Mail mentioned above), former -
maybe, but unlikely.

-- 
With respect,
Roman

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)