xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Repair XFS

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Repair XFS
From: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:57:14 -0900
In-reply-to: <002401c3bf62$79d135c0$0716a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-copies-to: nobody
Mail-followup-to: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <002401c3bf62$79d135c0$0716a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 01:13:36PM -0800, Norman Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm seeing some irregulars halts on one of my XFS volume (/srv). I can only
> use umount -l to dismount the volume or do a hot reboot.
> 
> Dec  9 15:47:25 smbserver kernel: xfs_force_shutdown(md(9,5),0x8) called
> from line 1039 of file xfs_trans.c.  Return address = 0xe109f312
> Dec  9 15:47:25 smbserver kernel: Corruption of in-memory data detected.
> Shutting down filesystem: md(9,5)
> Dec  9 15:47:25 smbserver kernel: Please umount the filesystem, and rectify
> the problem(s)
> 
> I'm not sure if the disk has problems, but during boot up there's no error
> found by fsck. The stall sometime occurs in weeks and sometimes few times
> per day. So I really doubt if this a disk problem. Is there any way I can
> trace or perhaps fix this? BTW, if I want to manually force a disk check on
> the XFS volume. Do I just do
> 
> $ umount -l srv
> $ fsck.xfs /srv
> 
> I don't see any actions on the screen.

nice example of why my patch to fsck.xfs should go in.

as a reminder:

--- xfs_fsck.c.orig     Sat Oct 18 19:59:18 2003
+++ xfs_fsck.c  Sat Oct 18 20:00:01 2003
@@ -35,8 +35,18 @@
 /* This used to be a symlink to /bin/true but that gives a wierd */
 /* dependency problem in a certain package manager.              */
 
+#include <stdio.h>
+
 int
 main(int argc, char **argv)
 {
-       return 0;
+        int i;
+
+        for (i = 1 ; i < argc ; i++) {
+                if ((argv[i])[0] != '-') {
+                        printf("%s: XFS filesystem, no check required.\n", 
argv[i]);
+                        break;
+                }
+        }
+        return 0;
 }

the message itself could perhaps be better, but you get the idea.

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

Attachment: pgp61D0UePo4d.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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