[Linux-cluster] Can not create a GFS2 filesystem with block size of 512
Theophanis Kontogiannis
theophanis_kontogiannis at yahoo.gr
Sun Mar 22 21:10:37 UTC 2009
Hello all,
I have:
Two nodes cluster with exactly the same hardware (4GB RAM, AMD X2, 1TB
SATAII disk, 320GB PATA disk)
Centos 5.2
2.6.18-92.1.22.el5.centos.plus
gfs2-utils-0.1.44-1.el5_2.1
kmod-gfs-0.1.23-5.el5_2.4
I try to create GFS2 on 1TB LV (on the SATA disk) with 'mkfs.gfs2 -b 512 -t
tweety:gfs2-01 -p lock_dlm -j 10 /dev/mapper/vg1-data1'
I want to use 512 block size. Since the command looked that it last forever,
I used -D option to look on what is going on. This visualized the fact that
nothing happens after initial effort to create Journal 3.
Because I got those freezes during mkfs.gfs2, I used 'vmstat -p /dev/sda1'
on a second terminal to observe disk activity. This confirmed that there is
no disk activity after the initial effort to create Journal 3.
I thought that it might be a problem of how I created the LV so I erase all
VG, LV and PV and try to create the file system on the physical device.
The creation of GFS2 on the physical partition also freezes on Journal 3.
This is the extract of the output of 'mkfs.gfs2 -D -b 512 -t tweety:gfs2-01
-p lock_dlm -j 10 /dev/sda1' (which is same to the output I get when using
the LV instead of the physical partition):
..........
ri_addr: 1951423390 ri_length: 269 ri_data0: 1951423659 ri_data: 523884
ri_bitbytes: 130971
ri_addr: 1951947543 ri_length: 269 ri_data0: 1951947812 ri_data: 523884
ri_bitbytes: 130971
ri_addr: 1952471696 ri_length: 269 ri_data0: 1952471965 ri_data: 523884
ri_bitbytes: 130971
ri_addr: 1952995849 ri_length: 269 ri_data0: 1952996118 ri_data: 523884
ri_bitbytes: 130971
Root directory:
mh_magic: 0x01161970 mh_type: 4 mh_format: 400 no_formal_ino: 1
no_addr: 399 di_mode: 040755 di_uid: 0 di_gid: 0 di_nlink: 2 di_size:
280 di_blocks: 1 di_atime: 1237752111 di_mtime: 1237752111 di_ctime:
1237752111 di_major: 0 di_minor: 0 di_goal_meta: 399 di_goal_data: 399
di_flags: 0x00000001 di_payload_format: 1200 di_height: 0 di_depth: 0
di_entries: 2 di_eattr: 0
Master dir:
mh_magic: 0x01161970 mh_type: 4 mh_format: 400 no_formal_ino: 2
no_addr: 400 di_mode: 040755 di_uid: 0 di_gid: 0 di_nlink: 2 di_size:
280 di_blocks: 1 di_atime: 1237752111 di_mtime: 1237752111 di_ctime:
1237752111 di_major: 0 di_minor: 0 di_goal_meta: 400 di_goal_data: 400
di_flags: 0x00000201 di_payload_format: 1200 di_height: 0 di_depth: 0
di_entries: 2 di_eattr: 0
Super Block:
mh_magic: 0x01161970 mh_type: 1 mh_format: 100 sb_fs_format: 1801
sb_multihost_format: 1900 sb_bsize: 512 sb_bsize_shift: 9 no_formal_ino:
2 no_addr: 400 no_formal_ino: 1 no_addr: 399 sb_lockproto: lock_dlm
sb_locktable: tweety:gfs2-01
Journal 0:
mh_magic: 0x01161970 mh_type: 4 mh_format: 400 no_formal_ino: 4
no_addr: 402 di_mode: 0100600 di_uid: 0 di_gid: 0 di_nlink: 1 di_size:
134217728 di_blocks: 266516 di_atime: 1237752111 di_mtime: 1237752111
di_ctime: 1237752111 di_major: 0 di_minor: 0 di_goal_meta: 4773
di_goal_data: 266917 di_flags: 0x00000200 di_payload_format: 0 di_height:
4 di_depth: 0 di_entries: 0 di_eattr: 0
Journal 1:
mh_magic: 0x01161970 mh_type: 4 mh_format: 400 no_formal_ino: 5
no_addr: 266918 di_mode: 0100600 di_uid: 0 di_gid: 0 di_nlink: 1
di_size: 134217728 di_blocks: 266516 di_atime: 1237752111 di_mtime:
1237752111 di_ctime: 1237752111 di_major: 0 di_minor: 0 di_goal_meta:
271289 di_goal_data: 533703 di_flags: 0x00000200 di_payload_format: 0
di_height: 4 di_depth: 0 di_entries: 0 di_eattr: 0
Journal 2:
mh_magic: 0x01161970 mh_type: 4 mh_format: 400 no_formal_ino: 6
no_addr: 533704 di_mode: 0100600 di_uid: 0 di_gid: 0 di_nlink: 1
di_size: 134217728 di_blocks: 266516 di_atime: 1237752111 di_mtime:
1237752111 di_ctime: 1237752111 di_major: 0 di_minor: 0 di_goal_meta:
538075 di_goal_data: 800219 di_flags: 0x00000200 di_payload_format: 0
di_height: 4 di_depth: 0 di_entries: 0 di_eattr: 0
Journal 3:
After that I have no disk activity and no logging.
There is no message from the kernel.
Anyone knows the reason for that behavior, and what is the minimum block
size I can use (I have tested 1024 and it works fine)?
Thank you all for your time.
Theophanis Kontogiannis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20090322/70d48c66/attachment.htm>
More information about the Linux-cluster
mailing list