[CentOS] tune2fs: Filesystem has unsupported feature(s) while trying to open
hescominsoon at gmail.com
Sat Apr 30 13:54:37 UTC 2016
uptime=insecurity. Patches must be kept up these days or your uptime
won't matter when your server gets compromised.
On 4/22/2016 4:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote:
> tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as
> tune2fs against ext4.
> Could this possibly be a machine where uptime has outlived its usefulness?
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Garman <matthew.garman at gmail.com>
>>> # rpm -qf `which tune2fs`
>> That's in the CentOS 6.4 repo, I don't see a newer one through 6.7 but
>> I didn't do a thorough check, just with google site: filter.
>>> # cat /etc/redhat-release
>>> CentOS release 6.5 (Final)
>>> # uname -a
>>> Linux lnxutil8 2.6.32-504.12.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Mar 11 22:03:14
>>> UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>> And that's a centosplus kernel in the 6.6 repo; while the regular
>> kernel for 6.7 is currently kernel-2.6.32-573.22.1.el6.src.rpm. So I'm
>> going to guess you'd have this problem even if you weren't using the
>> centosplus kernel.
>> I suggest you do a yum upgrade anyway, 6.7 is current, clean it up,
>> test it, and then while chances are it's still a problem, then it's
>> probably a legit bug worth filing. In the meantime you'll have to
>> upgrade your e2fsprogs yourself.
>>> I did a little web searching on this, most of the hits were for much
>>> older systems, where (for example) the e2fsprogs only supported up to
>>> ext3, but the user had an ext4 filesystem. Obviously that's not the
>>> case here. In other words, the filesystem was created with the
>>> mkfs.ext4 binary from the same e2fsprogs package as the tune2fs binary
>>> I'm trying to use.
>>> Anyone ever seen anything like this?
>> Well the date of the kernel doesn't tell the whole story, so you need
>> a secret decoder ring to figure out what's been backported into this
>> distro kernels. There's far far less backporting happening in user
>> space tools. So it's not difficult for them to get stale when the
>> kernel is providing new features. But I'd say the kernel has newer
>> features than the progs supports and the progs are too far behind.
>> And yes, this happens on the XFS list and the Btrfs list too where
>> people are using old progs with new kernels and it can be a problem.
>> Sometimes new progs and old kernels are a problem too but that's less
>> Chris Murphy
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS at centos.org
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
More information about the CentOS