https://jira.whamcloud.com This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 9.4.14 940014 05-12-2023 https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-12211 Lustre <p>For a filesystem that was format with lustre &lt;2.0 and was upgrade to 2.10.6 when You run e2fsck we get lots of these</p> <div class="code panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="codeContent panelContent"> <pre class="code-java"> Inode 529673 extent tree (at level 1) could be narrower. Optimize? no Inode 529713 extent tree (at level 1) could be narrower. Optimize? no Inode 529826 extent tree (at level 2) could be narrower. Optimize? no Inode 530285 extent tree (at level 2) could be narrower. Optimize? no </pre> </div></div> <p>Should we answer "yes" to these?</p> LU-12211

extent tree (at level 1) could be narrower.

Question/Request Minor Resolved Incomplete Peter Jones Mahmoud Hanafi Sat, 20 Apr 2019 17:57:40 +0000 Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:33:30 +0000 Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:11:52 +0000 Lustre 2.10.6 0 4 <p>What version of e2fsprogs do you have installed? We recommend using the latest version, which is currently 1.44.5-wc1.</p> <p>I don't think these messages are harmful, just a new check added since the last time you ran a full e2fsck, or possibly leftovers from the time the filesystem was formatted. </p> <p>You can determine which files are affected by running "<tt>debugfs -c -R 'ncheck 529673 529713 ...' /dev/XXX</tt>" for the listed inode numbers, and/or "<tt>debugfs -c -R 'stat &lt;529673&gt; /dev/XXX</tt>" to determine the pathname and timestamps/owners of the files. </p> <p>Running a fixing e2fsck should be fine. </p> <p>please close</p> Development Rank 1|i00f5r: Rank (Obsolete) 9223372036854775807