xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Xfs Access to block zero exception and system crash

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Xfs Access to block zero exception and system crash
From: Sagar Borikar <sagar_borikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:28:29 +0530
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4871A77D.7050803@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: PMC Sierra Inc
References: <486B01A6.4030104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1214979191.6025.22.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080702065652.GS14251@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <486B6062.6040201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <486C4F89.9030009@xxxxxxxxxxx> <486C6053.7010503@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <486CE9EA.90502@xxxxxxxxxxx> <486DF8F0.5010700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080704122726.GG29319@disturbed> <340C71CD25A7EB49BFA81AE8C839266702997641@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <486E5F4D.1010009@xxxxxxxxxxx> <340C71CD25A7EB49BFA81AE8C839266702997658@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <486FA095.1050106@xxxxxxxxxxx> <340C71CD25A7EB49BFA81AE8C839266702A084A6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <487117FC.9090109@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4871872B.9060107@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <487187D2.8080105@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4871885B.6090208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48718977.1090005@xxxxxxxxxxx> <48718AB6.80709@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48718BF0.2040700@xxxxxxxxxxx> <48719093.3060907@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <487191C2.6090803@sandeen .net> <4871947D.2090701@pmc-sierr a.com> <4871A77D.7050803@sandeen. net>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421)


Eric Sandeen wrote:
Sagar Borikar wrote:


Could you kindly try with my test? I presume you should see failure soon. I tried this on 2 different x86 systems 2 times ( after rebooting the system ) and I saw it every time.


Sure.  Is there a reason you're doing this on a loopback file?  That
probably stresses the vm a bit more, and might get even trickier if the
loopback file is sparse...
Initially I thought to do that since I didn't want to have a strict allocation limit but allowing allocations to grow as needed until the backing filesystem runs out of free space due to type of the test case I had. But then I dropped the plan and created a non-sparse loopback device. There was no specific reason to create loopback but as it was
simplest option to do it.
But anyway, on an x86_64 machine with 2G of memory and a non-sparse 10G
loopback file on 2.6.24.7-92.fc8, your test runs w/o problems for me,
though the system does get sluggish.  I let it run a bit then ran repair
and it found no problems, I'll run it overnight to see if anything else
turns up.
That will be great.  Thanks indeed.
Sagar

-Eric


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