At 10:29 29-6-2001 +0200, Simon Matter wrote:
Seth Mos schrieb:
I'm not complaining.
Your not. The coffee here must have been a bit on the strong side.
> Maybe a bit harsh but the md author might just be listening on the
> linux-kernel list.
Until today, it seemed to be XFS related.
Oh. I thought you noticed it earlier.
> The people here understand XFS all too well but they don't know the
> complete kernel in and out (could be wrong though). Another problem is that
> they unfortunately don't really have the time to fix all sorts of
kernel bugs.
>
You're right. But on this list we have all those people using big disks
and raid volumes. So if the problem was somehow XFS/SoftRAID related,
where could I ask.
True, but a lot of them are using hardware raid either IDE or scsi or fibre
based.
> If you can produce a testcase in which you can generate corruption on the
> fs no matter what the fs is that would be helpful. Are you just seeing file
> names being garbled or ar the files themeselves also corrupt. What does a
> xfs_repair mention when you try to check it? Does it even report anything
> on that matter at all or does it decide to core dump because it's checking
> swiss cheese?
It's the filnames and the files themselve. The hole blockdevice seems to
be corrupted.
Its not XFS,not SoftRAID.
Its something in the IDE subsystem.
What IDE controller was it? A promise I believe? I unfortunately don't have
experience with those controllers except for a Promise Ultra66 controller.
You don't happen to have another IDE controller to test it with do you :)
Do you also see a certain pattern in the fs corruption or is it just
/dev/random ?
> Can you check out the CVS tree and build a kernel with that to simulate it.
> 2.4.5+ makes a big difference relative to 2.4.3. There have been some raid
> fixes in the past time. And 2.4.6 is approaching in a rapid pace.
>
> I'm placing my bet on the next version being 2.4.6.
>
> If you build a new kernel with the CVS tree (currently at 2.4.6-pre6) and
> can test if you see corruption again that would be helpful. Then we at
> least now what issues remain for the 1.0.1 installer. Although shipping a
> 2.4.5 in 1.0.1 might not be possible.
Just tried rawhide 2.4.5-20010613 and it's exactly the same.
Crap, so much for my theory. Oh well.
Bye
--
Seth
Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.
|