[HPADM] Summary 10.20 - FIlesystems increased beyond 128 GB ** UPDATE **

From: Julian Rogan (Julian.Rogan_at_Unilever.com)
Date: 02/05/04

  • Next message: Kim, Kyeongwon: "[HPADM] trace logins."
    Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:54:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
    To: "hpux-admin@dutchworks.nl" <hpux-admin@dutchworks.nl>
    
    

    Hi,
    I had loads of good help and feedback on this issue:

    From Bill Hassell:

    Unfortunately, the 128Gb limit was never enforced until a recent patch.
    The reason there is a 128Gb limit is that there is unstable code beyond
    that limit that can cause corruption. I don't think it can ever be fixed
    without days of work using fsdb.

    On the further point of the disparity in sizes (as shown by bdf) of the
    old corrupted filesytems and the new copy David Antoch pointed out that
    the sum of the output of the du command actually equals the size of the
    new filesystem so the problem is actually a corrupt superblock in the
    original filesystem showing the wrong capacity.

    Many thank to the others who replied with advice.

    I will add some of the replies here for completeness:

    Craig Johnson:

    The error 28 indicates a lack of space on the filesystem needed to increase
    its size (catch 22). You shouldn't have run the fsck on the filesystem,
    you
    should have simply removed something, reran the fsadm, and you would have
    been fine. I suspect the "I/O errors were related to the application
    complaining about the lack of space.
     
    As far as fixing it goes, make sure it is unmounted, then run fsck -F vxfs
    -y /dev/vg01/oradbs. See if that helps. I'm concerned about the message
    "cannot perform log replay".

    Jim Turner:

    AFAIK, you'll need JFS 3.3 (vice the factory-delivered JFS3.1) to get a
    filesystem bigger than 128GB. I've done that on one of my 11.00 boxes,
    and I presume it is available for 10.20. I believe JFS 3.3 is a free
    upgrade.

    Steve Hamilton:

    I don't think that you can trust the 'bdf' output - it reads the
    superblock,
    which invariably is all messed up at this point in time.

    In my opinion, if the subdirs are similarly sized, then you should be OK...

    Bill Hassell again on sparse files:

    In my opinion, if the subdirs are similarly sized, then you should be OK...
    Really, really common circumstance, especially databases. The files are
    perfectly fine. When you copy something, it is read serially, something
    that is seldom done in a database. Database files are created as 'sparse'
    files. A simple example: create a new file with one 100 byte record. Then
    using lseek, write one more 100 byte record at position 1,000,000. The
    total occupied space is 200 bytes. All the in-between records arenot
    defined. Unix is happy with that. So you backup or copy the file and
    WOW, it changes from a 200 byte file into a 100megabyte (100 byte
    records X 1,000,000) file.

    You see, when Unix reads the file, undefined records are still returned
    as a string of zeros. So when you copy it, you create a stream of
    zeros for the undefined records in the original file. Both files are
    *exactly*
    the same as far as content. Checksums, record counts, they are
    exactly the same.

    thanks again.
    Julian

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Julian Rogan [SMTP:Julian.Rogan@Unilever.com]
    Sent: 04 February 2004 19:04
    To: 'hpux-admin@dutchworks.nl'
    Subject: RE: [HPADM] 10.20 - FIlesystems increased beyond 128 GB ** UPDATE
    **

    I have had a few very interesting replies which I will summarize later.
    I have had an interesting developement

    After I copied the Oracle data from the read-only (corrupted) filesystem I
    found I had approx 16 GB MORE data in the new
    filesystem:

    /dev/vg01/oradbs 163840000 63084053 94458701 40% /oradbs
    /dev/vg01/oradbsnew 89620480 79731763 9270712 90% /oradbsnew

    However if I use "du" to compare the disk usage of the subdirectories I
    get the following:

    du -sk /oradbs*/mnt/EKA
    18221746 /oradbs/mnt/EKA
    18161282 /oradbsnew/mnt/EKA

    du -sk /oradbs*/mnt/EKATST
    13915403 /oradbs/mnt/EKATST
    13915395 /oradbsnew/mnt/EKATST

    du -sk /oradbs*/mnt/RLINK
    47383706 /oradbs/mnt/RLINK
    47365634 /oradbsnew/mnt/RLINK

    du -sk /oradbs*/mnt/RLINKDEV
    266321 /oradbs/mnt/RLINKDEV
    266321 /oradbsnew/mnt/RLINKDEV

    i.e. du is showing LESS in the new filesystem than the original. However
    as you can see it is not 16 GB less.

    I unmounted and remounted the new filesystem but there was no change

    I now don't know whether I can trust the copy.
    Any advice out there?

    thanks

    Julian

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Julian Rogan [SMTP:Julian.Rogan@Unilever.com]
    Sent: 04 February 2004 17:11
    To: hpux-admin@dutchworks.nl
    Subject: [HPADM] 10.20 - FIlesystems increased beyond 128 GB

    Hi,

    I have just done the following (after forgetting about the 128 GB limit on
    filesystems)

    I increased a logical volume to 160 GB and then issued the fsadm command
    to increase the filesystem

    I got the message:

    fsadm: /etc/default/fs is used for determining the file system type
    fsadm: /dev/vg01/roradbs is currently 81920000 sectors - size will be
    increased
    fsadm: attempt to resize /dev/vg01/roradbs failed with errno 28

    The filesystem starting spewing out I/O errors and we lost access to the
    applications. I tried to fsck and got the
    following output:

    fsck -y -o full /dev/vg01/oradbs
    fsck: /etc/default/fs is used for determining the file system type
    intent log marked bad in super-block
    cannot perform log replay
    pass0 - checking structural files
    pass1 - checking inode sanity and blocks
    pass2 - checking directory linkage
    pass3 - checking reference counts
    pass4 - checking resource maps
    free block count incorrect 100755947 expected 84011499 fix? (ynq)y
    free extent vector incorrect fix? (ynq)y
    OK to clear log? (ynq)y
    set state to CLEAN? (ynq)y

    Mount still fails with filesystem corrupt.
    I have managed to mount th efilsystem in readonly mode and currently
    copying the data over to a new filesystem.

    So finally to my question: I there a way to fix the filesystem?

    regards,
    Julian

    --
                 ---> Please post QUESTIONS and SUMMARIES only!! <---
            To subscribe/unsubscribe to this list, contact majordomo@dutchworks.nl
           Name: hpux-admin@dutchworks.nl     Owner: owner-hpux-admin@dutchworks.nl
     
     Archives:  ftp.dutchworks.nl:/pub/digests/hpux-admin       (FTP, browse only)
                http://www.dutchworks.nl/htbin/hpsysadmin   (Web, browse & search)
    

  • Next message: Kim, Kyeongwon: "[HPADM] trace logins."

    Relevant Pages