Re: stress test on ppc

["Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

hi,

On Nov 28, 10:37am, Thomas Graichen wrote:
> Subject: Re: stress test on ppc
> ...
> > so running xfs_db after doing mkfs.xfs with no blksize options
> > (as in test 004 - populate_scratch() routine) should always show
> > the blocksize as 4096.  what i don't understand is how we've ended
> > up with a non-default (but valid) blocksize after doing a default
> > mkfs.
> 
> hm - but mkfs.xfs is using the correct one:
> 
>   ...
>   naming   =version 2              bsize=4096  
>   log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=1200
>   ...
> 

you snipped the interesting bit there - a couple of lines up
from "naming" ("data   =   bsize=????").

> so you assume that either xfs_db gets it wrong or it is stored some-
> how wrong on the filesystem (which i can't really believe due to how
> well xfs works on the ppc :-)?
> 

;-)

i'm not sure where its going wrong - test 004 does a mkfs, mount,
a series of writes, umount, mount, and then runs xfs_db - could
be anywhere in that chain of events that the blksize goes loopy.
(could try running
        "xfs_db -r -c sb -c p $SCRATCH_DEV | grep blocksize"
at each point to see where it goes wrong?)

cheers.

-- 
Nathan