glenn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Been running 2.4.2-XFS for a while. Been telling myself
> to upgrade that thing for a while--never did, and now I've
> got a blown up filesystem to show for it. Oops.
>
> 80 gig drive, filled to under 1.5 gigs free, about 5-10
> active FTPs running at once. Hard crash, kernel panic
> ("tried to kill init"), mount fails on reboot with "I/O
> error" while doing the mount recovery, but nothing more
> useful than that (it kernel panics immediately afterward,
> having no root FS.)
First guess would be drive error, disk errors is the
log at recovery can be fatal and probably none recoverable.
>
>
> After some effort (mostly due to not being able to find
> a boot CD with XFS on it), I managed to get xfs_repair
> running from a floppy. Ran it; noticed far too many
> errors, so stopped it. Good thing I did--running it
> again (this time with -n--which I should have done to
> begin with) shows that, all told, it probably would have
> wiped out anything that remains ("would have junked"
> each of my root directories, after a massive number of
> other directories.) A quick check showed the boot CD
> was a 2.2 kernel (XFS-less, for the sake of xfs_repairing);
> I don't know if this would cause problems for what appears
> to be a fully userspace program. (In any event, it probably
> made the situation worse.)
>
> I've logged a full xfs_repair -n. One thing missing from it
> that the real (partial) run started out with was "error setting
> block size: I/O error" (related to old kernel?) The log
> is at
Yes that is the main problem with running any of the xfs utils
on a non xfs kernel.
Running xfs_repair with a non block set size capable kernel
probably caused more damage to your file system
than originally had.
I would grab the boot.img from the 1.0 installer on the ftp site and
use that kernel + xfs_repair on a floppy.
> ftp://bscwulf.bridgew.edu/out.txt.gz
>
> It's listing a lot of files that havn't been touched in
> days or weeks, not just files that were being written
> at the crash.
>
> I did a dry run with both XFS trees; they were visibly identical
> (though I didn't bother to diff them.)
>
> xfs_logprint shows one entry: "Unmount filesystem".
>
> Any options short of "complete data loss"? Oh, and if anyone
> could point me to a reasonably stable CD image for XFS
> recovery, I'd appreciate it.
The 1.0 installer iso can be used for repair as is has xfs_repair in
the second stage.
>
>
> --
> Glenn Maynard
--
Russell Cattelan
cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx
|