xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "Corruption of in-memory data"

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: "Corruption of in-memory data"
From: Wessel Dankers <wsl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:06:06 +0200
In-reply-to: <20020520102853.C18897@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20020520090515.B18897@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1021923461.4832.335.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020520102853.C18897@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On 2002-05-20 10:28:54-1000, Sidik Isani wrote:
>   1. Partitioned 6 13GB IDE disks as ~12.9x6 raid5 plus a small raid1
>      on the first two disks for the log.
>   2. Rebooted to be sure partition tables were seen correctly.
>   3. mkraid /dev/md0 (the raid5 ... resyncing began)
>   4. mkraid /dev/md1 (the raid1 ... resyncing delayed because on same disk)
>   5. mkfs.xfs -o logdev=/dev/md1 /dev/md0
>   6. mounted it and untarred a kernel tree (notably faster than 2.4.16!)
>   7. resyncing continues until about half way through it finds a bad sector
>      on *one* of the disks and switches to degraded mode.  No IDE errors
>      after that one.
>   8. Rebooted (wanted to see if it came back still in degraded mode. It did.)
>   9. mounted again and tried to rm -rf the linux kernel tree... crash.

If the disk error occurred WHILE syncing, the raid5 drivers may not have
had time yet to write the parity information, and when in degraded mode may
have tried to restore data from unitialized parity data. This would explain
why the disk is so drastically garbled in places.

Regards,


--
Wessel Dankers <wsl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

the printer thinks its a router.


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