On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 03:36:04PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:51AM -0600, Steve Lord wrote:
> >> Have you successfully used xfs on this box with older kernels, or is
> >> this a new filesystem? Was this the first mount under 2.6.4-mm1?
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 10:30:54AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > This would be useful to know.
>
> I created it first with 2.6.3-mm4.
ok, thanks. did you see these recovery problems with that
kernel too, or is it specific to this later one?
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 10:30:54AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > Attached is a test program thats been used to exercise log
> > recovery in a more user-friendly fashion. It uses the xfs
> > forced-shutdown mode to get a dirty log without having to
> > pull the plug. So, generate traffic, shutdown, unmount, &
> > then the next mount will do log recovery. If you find the
> > right traffic to generate a reproducible failure, diagnosing
> > this becomes a whole lot easier. There's other tools for
> > generating all manner of different types of traffic in the
> > xfstests directory in the xfs userspace cvs too - fsstress
> > is a good one for generating lots of metadata operations.
>
> Well, it sort of crapped itself in the midst of doing large
> recovery ops, so I think marking it dirty and replaying nothing
> won't fly,
thats not quite what this does - the forced shutdown will cause
a real filesystem recovery to run on the next mount. try with
-f too to flush the log (but not metadata) during shutdown.
> but pulling the plug in the midst of fsstress sounds
> like a good bet.
thats a rather painful way to do testing :).
cheers.
--
Nathan
|