topic Re: fadm error no 28 in Operating System - HP-UX

fadm error no 28

Akram Shaik — Wed, 09 May 2007 04:58:21 GMT

Hi all,

I had to extend a filesystem by 500MB.
I exceuted lvextend and then the fsadm command to increase the size.

while executing fsadm i got error number 28.
But the filesystem was only 86% utilzed(more than 1GB of free space available).

Still couldnt figure out why it gave an error.

Later I moved some big files from the filesystem and fsadm worked.

I stii have doubts why fsadm returned error 28 even when so much space was available free.
Can anyone suggest why it happens

Re: fadm error no 28

Ludovic Derlyn — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:49:17 GMT

hi

perhaps an error in syntax of fsadm or FS full
error 28 indicates no space on device

What is the syntax of the command ?

regards

L-DERLYN

Re: fadm error no 28

Jaime Bolanos Rojas. — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:53:31 GMT

Akram,

On this issue it's important to know the OS version that you are running, the issue was fix in 10.20 and 11.00 with patches PHKL_18913 and PHKL_18543.
If you are running a later version then moving some files out of the filesystem like you did fixes the issue, for some reason the system though that it was full.
Rebooting is also known to fix the issue, even though rebooting is most of the time not an option.

Regards,

Jaime.

Re: fadm error no 28

Doug O'Leary — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:01:08 GMT

Hey;

Could you possibly have been out of inodes? That's one common area where the filesystem is full but shows less usage than is allocaetd...

Doug

Re: fadm error no 28

Akram Shaik — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:48:02 GMT

Hi,

The syntax of command was fine as the same syntax worked when files were moved out.

And with regard to OS version it is B.11.11 and no problems with that.

May be as specified inodes would have been an issue, but still not sure of that..

Re: fadm error no 28

Sandman! — Wed, 09 May 2007 10:32:41 GMT

Since vxfs assigns inodes as needed it hits the soft limit only when the filesystem does not have largefiles enabled. Verify if that's the case by running:

# mkfs -F vxfs -m

If the above command returns largefiles on the mount point then it is definitely not inodes. And if it does say nolargefiles check the inode usage for that mount point with "bdf -i". Only if usage is > 8 million it is related to inodes.

Re: fadm error no 28

A. Clay Stephenson — Wed, 09 May 2007 10:46:30 GMT

> Since vxfs assigns inodes as needed it hits the soft limit only when the filesystem does not have largefiles enabled.

This isn't necessarily true. It is possible to specify a fixed number of inodes when a vxfs filesystem is created though that is not a common practice.

You can execute "newfs -F vxfs -m /dev/vgxx/lvoly" to make sure that "ninode=unlimited" is display. Note: newfs -m does not create a new filesystem but rather shows the options that were used to create an existing filesystem.

One other thing that springs to mind is that the filesystem could have actually been out of space because some processes had unlinked the files but had not closed them. It depends upon which tool you used to display free space as to what that 86% actually meant.

Re: fadm error no 28

Akram Shaik — Thu, 10 May 2007 04:30:55 GMT

Hi,

Sandman : As suggested by your comment

Filesystem kbytes used avail %used iused ifree %iuse Mounted on
/dev/vgdb/lvu0
9732096 8116955 1514482 84% 102726 403782 20% /u0/oracle

The above output was after extension of 500MB

I guess that inode was not a problem too.

As Clay specified that some process is holding up the links.... and not releasing the space that is also not the case as the used versus actual kbytes allocated is in the correct ratio.i.e 84 % utilized ...

And I used bdf command to see the space utilized.

Still dont know why it returned an error.. May be Iam missing something...

sorry for my late reply
Thanks for all your responses anyways.

Re: fadm error no 28

Ludovic Derlyn — Fri, 11 May 2007 01:37:44 GMT

hi,

My colleague has encountered this problem
FS full to 89 %, increase size failed with error 28

I has searched and tried a solution :
defragmentation of FS, and after increase it's ok...

perhaps the solution ?
I will create an incident to HP support to check if a patch exist for this problem

Regards
L-DERLYN