xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stress test on ppc

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: stress test on ppc
From: Thomas Graichen <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Nov 2000 13:21:27 GMT
Distribution: local
Organization: innominate AG, Berlin, Germany
References: <news2mail-8uecj0$i5e$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <10011101103.ZM113097@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20001110094151.C333@ysabell> <10011110006.ZM127189@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <news2mail-8uo7od$4lt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <10011141059.ZM128320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <news2mail-8utlfv$8iu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <10011221244.ZM158790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Thomas Graichen <graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.0-XFS-test10 (i686))
"Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> hi Thomas,

> On Nov 15,  9:37am, Thomas Graichen wrote:
>> Subject: Re: stress test on ppc
>> ...
>> > 004 - this looks like a 32 bit number overflow in the xfs_db
>> > "freesp" command, i'll need to investigate a bit more.
>> 

> going through this one again - this doesn't look like a
> bug in xfs_db after all (the xfs_db output in the .bad
> file looks correct).

> (cmd/xfs/stress/004 on ppc produced...)

> QA output created by 004
> Checking blocks column same as df: no (204776407040 != 1599815680)
> Error: /dev/hda9: freesp mismatch: no (204776407040 != 1599815680)
> xfs_db output ...
>    from      to extents  blocks    pct
>       1       1       4       4   0.00
>   32768   49152       8  390576 100.00
> total free extents 12
> total free blocks 390580
> average free extent size 32548.3
> Checking percent column yields 100: 100

> so, xfs_db gave us a total free blocks value of 390580,
> which multiplied by the blocksize (4096) gives 1599815680.
> df gave us an "avail" value of 1599815680, which all looks
> correct - the question is, where did 204776407040 come from??

> either the initial blocksize calculation is incorrect,
> or perl on ppc is doing some very funky math.  can you
> figure out what the blocksize gets calculated as?  (i've
> changed the test to create a 004.full with this info in -
> could you rerun the test & send me that?)

ok - here it is - sorry for the delay - i was a few days away:

df gave: blocks=3136128 used=11488 avail=3124640
blocksize from xfs_db is '524288'
xfs_db for /dev/hda9
   from      to extents  blocks    pct
      1       1       4       4   0.00
  32768   49152       8  390576 100.00
total free extents 12
total free blocks 390580
average free extent size 32548.3

> (btw, any luck with ppc mount detecting a minix filesystem?)

sorry- looks like this was my fault: minix fs was simply not compiled
into the kernel :-( ... works now

t

-- 
thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
technical director                                       innominate AG
clustering & security                             the linux architects
tel: +49-30-308806-13   fax: -77             http://www.innominate.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>