[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3384808.0kkUZK9dS1@deuteros>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:58:15 +0000
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...lan.co.uk>
To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc: Prashant Shah <pshah.mumbai@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Maximum number of directories
On Tuesday 05 February 2013 15:43:51 Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> > > > Yeah, I totally forgot about the inode situation on ext filesystems.
> > > > So is
> > > > tune2fs giving wrong stats for live (mounted) filesystems?
> > >
> > > Not sure what situation you're referring to. Directory as any other
> > > file is represented by an inode and there is a limited number of
> > > inodes in the file system.
> >
> > The situation that inode blocks are statically allocated at mkfs time.
>
> Yes, that is true.
Indeed it is. :)
> > > Using tune2fs on live/mounted file system is bad idea and the
> > > information might not be correct (exactly for this reason it is
> > > _NOT_ recommended to run fsck on live file system). Use 'df -i' if
> > > you want to get information about inode count.
> >
> > Yes, later I figured out that tune2fs -l does not give current stats for
> > live filesystems. I did not expect that to be dangerous though. And I
> > also forgot about 'df -i'. Thing is, I did not hit this limit since the
> > previous century so guess I subconsciously assumed inode limits are an
> > outdated concept. :)
> Running tune2fs -l on live file system is not dangerous, I did not
> said that. Running fsck on live file system on the other hand _is_
> dangerous.
:) Neither have I said I was running fsck or anything other than 'tune2fs -l'.
Regards,
Tvrtko
--
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