> Well, xfs does assume that if the underlying IO layers tell it that
> something is written, that it is in fact written. Depending on the level
> of flakiness in your SATA driver, it looks quite possible that you have
> encountered a SATA bug, not an xfs bug.
I assure you, I don't expect perfection in the face of such
flakiness, but it did seem a little bit less than robust.
Mostly, I'm wondering:
- Can we extract any information about what misbehaved to help the SATA
- Is running xfs_repair the best thing to do? Are all of those error
messages reasonably harmless? I don't know what's "normal" in
xfs_repair output the way that I know that complaints about dtime,
too many blocks allocated, and bitmap inconsistencies are basically
harmless in e2fsck output, and I only need to worry about other
Thank you very much for your help!