e2fsprogs-1.32-15-i386 [root@antivir1 root]# df -k Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 2063504 819908 1138776 42% / /dev/sda3 32376884 5915804 24816428 20% /home none 1541160 0 1541160 0% /dev/shm /dev/sdb1 34954280 8748956 24429744 27% /var [root@antivir1 root]# umount /var [root@antivir1 root]# fsck -f /dev/sdb1 fsck 1.32 (09-Nov-2002) e2fsck 1.32 (09-Nov-2002) Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes Inode 3964929 is too big. Truncate<y>? no Block #8193 (53750) causes directory to be too big. IGNORED. Block #8194 (53751) causes directory to be too big. IGNORED. Block #8195 (53752) causes directory to be too big. IGNORED. Block #8196 (53753) causes directory to be too big. IGNORED. Block #8197 (53754) causes directory to be too big. IGNORED. Block #8198 (53755) causes directory to be too big. IGNORED. Block #8199 (53756) causes directory to be too big. IGNORED. Block #8200 (53757) causes directory to be too big. IGNORED. Block #8201 (53758) causes directory to be too big. IGNORED. Block #8202 (53759) causes directory to be too big. IGNORED. Block #8203 (53760) causes directory to be too big. IGNORED. Too many illegal blocks in inode 3964929. Clear inode<y>? no Suppress messages<y>? /var: e2fsck canceled. /var: ********** WARNING: Filesystem still has errors ********** After a run with fsck -y, 450,000 inodes are left unattached on the disk. Stephen mentioned this entry as a possible work-around: 2004-07-26 Theodore Ts'o <tytso> * pass1.c (process_block): Change the limit of directory size from 32 MB to 2GB.
This issue is on Red Hat Engineering's list of planned work items for the upcoming Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.8 release. Engineering resources have been assigned and barring unforeseen circumstances, Red Hat intends to include this item in the 3.8 release.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2006-0400.html