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> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Garman <matthew.garman at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>> # rpm -qf `which tune2fs` >>> e2fsprogs-1.41.12-18.el6.x86_64 >> 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 >> common. >> >> >> -- >> Chris Murphy >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos