has anyone ever ran into a problem where there was lots of space in the
filesystem but you can not add any files greater than 32K or they get
truncated in most cases to 32K or it fails on NOMEM type errors.

Well, we had a problem yesterday where we had this situation.

the solution from IBM was to "chfs -a options=rw,mind /filesystem_name" on
the offending file. That allows you more indirect inodes.

I do not see much on the net about that "mind" mount option. seems to have
been introduced in AIX 4.3.3 ML10. Thats what we are running..

June Bug <fake@bugs.com> wrote:
JB> has anyone ever ran into a problem where there was lots of space in the
JB> filesystem but you can not add any files greater than 32K or they get
JB> truncated in most cases to 32K or it fails on NOMEM type errors.

JB> Well, we had a problem yesterday where we had this situation.

JB> the solution from IBM was to "chfs -a options=rw,mind /filesystem_name" on
JB> the offending file. That allows you more indirect inodes.

JB> I do not see much on the net about that "mind" mount option. seems to have
JB> been introduced in AIX 4.3.3 ML10. Thats what we are running..

Short URL (for people with 80-column terms who copy-and-paste):

http://xrl.us/bdkl

Canonical URL:

http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...ing.google.com

Regards,

Nicholas

--
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
3.1.3 NetNews Guidelines

"Nicholas Dronen" <ndronen@io.frii.com> wrote in message
news:4011ad3b$0$70309$75868355@news.frii.net...
> June Bug <fake@bugs.com> wrote:
> JB> has anyone ever ran into a problem where there was lots of space in
the
> JB> filesystem but you can not add any files greater than 32K or they get
> JB> truncated in most cases to 32K or it fails on NOMEM type errors.
>
> JB> Well, we had a problem yesterday where we had this situation.
>
> JB> the solution from IBM was to "chfs -a options=rw,mind
/filesystem_name" on
> JB> the offending file. That allows you more indirect inodes.
>
> JB> I do not see much on the net about that "mind" mount option. seems to
have
> JB> been introduced in AIX 4.3.3 ML10. Thats what we are running..
>
> Short URL (for people with 80-column terms who copy-and-paste):
>
> http://xrl.us/bdkl
>
> Canonical URL:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...ing.google.com
>
> Regards,
>
> Nicholas
>
> --
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
> 3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
> 3.1.3 NetNews Guidelines

Hi Nick, yes, thats the only reference I found before I posted this but it
does not explain it as well as I hoped. I was hoping for others personal
experiences on this group as well. thnx

June Bug <fake@bugs.com> wrote:
JB> "Nicholas Dronen" <ndronen@io.frii.com> wrote in message
JB> news:4011ad3b$0$70309$75868355@news.frii.net...
>> June Bug <fake@bugs.com> wrote:
>> JB> has anyone ever ran into a problem where there was lots of space
>> JB> in the filesystem but you can not add any files greater
>> JB> than 32K or they get truncated in most cases to 32K or it
>> JB> fails on NOMEM type errors.
>>
>> JB> Well, we had a problem yesterday where we had this situation.
>>
>> JB> the solution from IBM was to "chfs -a options=rw,mind
>> JB> /filesystem_name" on the offending file. That allows you >> JB>> more indirect inodes.
>>
>> JB> I do not see much on the net about that "mind" mount option. seems
>> JB> to have been introduced in AIX 4.3.3 ML10. Thats what we are running..
>>
>> Short URL (for people with 80-column terms who copy-and-paste):
>>
>> http://xrl.us/bdkl
>>
>> Canonical URL:
>>
JB> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...ing.google.com

JB> Hi Nick, yes, thats the only reference I found before I posted this but it
JB> does not explain it as well as I hoped. I was hoping for others personal
JB> experiences on this group as well. thnx

Please don't include .sigs in your responses. Thanks.

What more about the problem do you want to know? Or, if you don't
know what you want to know, then: why are you asking?

There's a thread about the problem here, although it doesn't provide
as much information as the previous message I posted:

http://xrl.us/bdmj
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ms...nnrp1.deja.com

Regards,

Nicholas

basically I wanted to know why this was necessary to add this option in AIX
in ML10. have you ever come across this or are you a google
searcher/poster..

June Bug <fake@bugs.com> wrote:
JB> basically I wanted to know why this was necessary to add this
JB> option in AIX in ML10.

Presumably either because

* it wasn't seen before (due to the fact that people hadn't
been copying a large number of files > 32 KB until recently
and/or hadn't been doing it on large non-large-file-enabled
filesystems); or
* a recent change in the JFS or in-memory filesystem caching
implementation imposed this admittedly unpleasant and
seemingly arbitrary limit.

I suspect it was the first one, but I am not able to answer your
question with perfect authority. Nevertheless, I think the explanation
provided in the EXTRA DETAIL section of

http://xrl.us/bdkl
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...ing.google.com

is helpful if you're generally familiar with filesystems.

Ultimately, the person who would be able to answer your question
with absolute certainty is the guy or gal who implemented the fix
at IBM in Austin.

JB> have you ever come across this or are you a google searcher/poster..

I responded to the thread in which the problem was first mentioned
in this newsgroup, so I have seen it before, but not on any machine
for which I am responsible.

Regards,

Nicholas

--
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
3.1.3 NetNews Guidelines