[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.4.9 is bad

To: Florin Andrei <florin@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.4.9 is bad
From: Paul Schutte <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:49:18 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1001963944.21818.32.camel@stantz.corp.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
I am amazed that it worked.

If I am correct, the XFS-1.0.1 was a patch against the 2.4.5 kernel.

 The VM changed a LOT  in the linux kernel lately.
XFS depends very heavely on the VM.
The guys from SGI did a lot of work to adapt XFS for each of these

My guess wil be that the XFS-1.0.1 VM implimentation is drasticly
different from that in 2.4.9 and 2.4.10
and this combination will result in strange errors.

I am using 2.4.10-pre9 (That was the last release that I have before yet
another major VM change occured)
on 5 different mail servers. All using XFS. All very stable.

I would advice you to use the kernel from the cvs tree instead.


Florin Andrei wrote:

> Looks like there are some serious problems with 2.4.9
> This is what i get from a system running XFS-1.0.1 on linux-2.4.9, RAID
> hardware (DAC960):
> xfs_force_shutdown(dac960(48,4),0x8) called from line 4072 of file
> xfs_bmap.c.  Return address = 0xc01b8b9c
> Corruption of in-memory data detected.  Shutting down filesystem:
> dac960(48,4)
> Please umount the filesystem, and rectify the problem(s)
> I saw this at least twice on this system.
> Anyone knows if 2.4.10 fixes these problems?
> --
> Florin Andrei
> "This is a Klingon." "Where did it came from?" "Oklahoma."
> (from Star Trek Enterprise series premiere)

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