Page 2 of 2

Re: CLOSED: More Greyhole Write Issues - WARN write: No metadata files could be created -- not creating 'gh' subfolder?

Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:24 pm
by astinusofmetate
Thank you. That fix appeared to work in that I now see content propagated to the "gh" sub-directory/folder after hitting the "Run FSCK" button.

Sanity check: Does it make sense that the data is currently showing in 2 locations concurrently? What I mean is that the /Movies directory shows the content and eXtplorer shows the type as "File (Symbolic Link). At the same time, within the /drives/<drivename>/gh directories (on both drives) the same data is listed but type is shown as "File".

Looks like all is well, except that when I go to the Dashboard>Setup>Disks>Partitions tab the two 6TB drives (sdc1 and sdd1 in this case) do not seem to capture the recently added 5gb of data to each drive like I would expect to see.

Is this normal? (My secondary concern is trying to figure out how to track used disk space as I start using Greyhole.)

Re: CLOSED: More Greyhole Write Issues - WARN write: No metadata files could be created -- not creating 'gh' subfolder?

Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:43 pm
by bigfoot65
Does it make sense that the data is currently showing in 2 locations concurrently? What I mean is that the /Movies directory shows the content and eXtplorer shows the type as "File (Symbolic Link). At the same time, within the /drives/<drivename>/gh directories (on both drives) the same data is listed but type is shown as "File".
Yes that is the purpose of Greyhole and how it works. You might want to read up on Greyhole. It's important to understand how things work before implementing them.

Re: CLOSED: More Greyhole Write Issues - WARN write: No metadata files could be created -- not creating 'gh' subfolder?

Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:28 pm
by astinusofmetate
Thanks for the quick reply. I do understand the concept of Greyhole (mostly) after reading the Wiki about 10 times. What wasn't clear to me is why the drive space didn't show the data transfer.

But now, for whatever reason, the disk usage is now reporting correctly. I assumed "fsck" did something magical to make that transition occur instantly, but I guess not as far as disk usage reporting.

Either way, so far it appears things are doing what they should so no need for me to further drag on this dead thread. :)