Agreed. I think that anything pre 2.4.10 is not worth using. There are
too many generic scalability issues that gave 2.4 it's reputation.
On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 15:24, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Hi Brandon -
>
> On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 15:02, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
>
> > [Not subscribed so please keep me in the Cc list]
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > This past weekend one of our Linux 2.4/XFS fileservers crashed pretty
> > badly. I am attempting to diagnose the cause of the crash so that I
> may
> > prevent it from recurring. My analysis so far follows. I am hoping
> > that a few of you out there might have seen this before or have ideas
> on
> > its cause.
> <snip>
> > void ll_rw_block(int rw, int nr, struct buffer_head * bhs[])
> > {
> > ...
> > if (buffer_delay(bh) || !buffer_mapped(bh))
> > BUG();
> > ...
> > }
> <snip>
> > presently running RedHat 7.1 XFS (using SGI's install ISO) and the
> > kernel is a known good copy of 2.4.7/XFS pulled from SGI's CVS at the
> > time that this fileserver was setup
>
> The reason that BUG() is there is that if we get to ll_rw_block, ready
> to send a buffer to disk, but we have no place to put it (i.e. it's a
> delalloc buffer, or it's not mapped) then we're in trouble.
>
> How you got here, I'm not certain, but going back to debug a 2.4.7
> kernel is going to be rough - there have been so many changes since
> then.
>
> We are working on a release for XFS 1.1 (yours was 1.0 or 1.0.1, I
> think?) and if possible, I would suggest that you upgrade a box or two
> and see how that goes. If nothing else, the updated kernels based on
> Red Hat code have some security issues fixed. :)
>
> -Eric
>
> --
> Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
> sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc.
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-698-7250
email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it."
Latin Proverb
|