| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? |
| From: | Paul Slootman <paul@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:55:27 +0200 |
| In-reply-to: | <20060814145927.GA28940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20060810164222.GA16332@xxxxxxxxxx> <20060814145927.GA28940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 |
On Mon 14 Aug 2006, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:42:22PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote: > > > empty data block 10 in directory inode 1343747104: junking block > > empty data block 11 in directory inode 1343747104: junking block > > empty data block 12 in directory inode 1343747104: junking block > > free block 16777216 entry 10 for directory ino 1343747104 bad > > rebuilding directory inode 1343747104 > > do subsequent xfs_repair runs go silent? if not then you've probably > hit a case where it's leaving something icky behind and you have to > manually poke it using xfs_db (i had this myself) No, these particular messages didn't reoccur, although I've been having a lot of trouble with that filesystem (see my other message today). Paul Slootman |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: Negligible improvement when using su/sw for hardware RAID5, expected?, Sebastian Brings |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: review: cleanup xfs_da_node_lookup_int (was Re: [PATCH] XFS: possibly uninitialized variable use in fs/xfs/xfs_da_btree.c::xfs_da_node_lookup_int()), Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!?, Chris Wedgwood |
| Next by Thread: | Review: Repair multi-threading code, Madan Valluri |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |