xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28

To: Renaat Dumon <renaat.dumon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS corruption on 2.4.28
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:23:29 -0600
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200510302326.j9UNPw4u005031@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200510302326.j9UNPw4u005031@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc3 (X11/20050720)
Renaat Dumon wrote:

A couple questions early on - is this stock 2.4.28 from kernel.org?

Are you using extended attributes?  Have you run xfs_fsr on this filesystem?

I doubt that fsr is the culprit here, because your files are only 28 bytes long, so fsr would not touch them.

When I then cd into 0/0/0 and I do a 'du -sk *' :

2147483532      000fe1c2b17a7b4b4d2c4eea341cfb08.65536.db

0x7FFFFF8C - hm, a lot of binary 1's in there...


bacardi 0 # ls -al 000fe1c2b17a7b4b4d2c4eea341cfb08.65536.db
-rw-------    1 root     root           28 Oct 30 18:53
000fe1c2b17a7b4b4d2c4eea341cfb08.65536.db

0x1C

can you try an xfs_bmap -v, and xfs_bmap -a -v of this file? Just out of curiosity.


The correct filesize is indeed 28 bytes! The file mentioned here is just an
example, but there are quite some files like that actually :(


It might be interesting to gather the reported/correct values for several files, so we can possibly identify a pattern.


Unmounting/remounting the filesystem makes the issue go away temporarily, it
is back after a couple of hours of operation.


so a file which shows up as bad is ok after a remount? So at least this problem is not on-disk, but...


I did a xfs_check / xfs_repair before ; but that just dumped (ALMOST)
EVERYTHING in lost+found , so I'm losing data :(


... something -is- bad on disk.  What is the output of xfs_repair?


The fact that I'm having this on multiple systems is what worries me, the
filesystems are created with default options, but are mounted with
su=256,sw=128

what volume manager are you using?

Can you verify whether using the stripe geometry contributes to the problem? Without su,sw does the problem go away?



Does this sound familiar to any of you ? Thanks a bunch!

not quite, the last du reporting problem was only on files with extended attributes, and only after an xfs_fsr run - but in your case the files are small enough that fsr probably ignores them.

Thanks,

-Eric


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