On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 01:00:52AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> Sorry to pick up an old-ish thread, but I have a similar situation:
>> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 09:23:44AM -0500, Roman Kononov wrote:
>> >> On 2010-05-23, 20:18:56 +1000, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > Can you find out what the application is triggering this?
>> I noticed this happening with mysql and xtrabackup -- the latter opens
>> up mysql's files while mysql is still running (and modifying its own
>> files) and backs them up in a (hopefully) safe way.
> That's not safe at all - there's no guarantee you'll end up with a
> consistent database image doing backups like this. Have you ever
> tried to restore and use one of these backups?
Yep, works great. [Used it to initialize a slave, did the full
checksums, so it's unlikely to have randomly corrupt data.] It's the
only credible way to backup a sizeable mysql db, since it works online
with InnoDB; the other options involve either only using MyISAM
(non-transactional) or locking the db for the duration (we couldn't
wait that long, but attempting to do it on a backup machine looked
like it was going to take somewhere between 3 and 7 days, although we
gave up after 24 hours... not something we can afford to do with any
kind of regularity).
>> Would it be safe to remove the warning at
>> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_lrw.c:651 (which looks like it has moved to
>> xfs_file.c in 2.6.34)? It seems undesirable to get a long stream of
>> these (51 in this particular instance) every time we run a backup...
> You can if you want, but then you won't know when your backup or
> database might have been corrupted, right?
No, but I wouldn't know that without the warnings either -- for all I
know xtrabackup could be buggy in all kinds of ways. The only real way
to check is to use the backup data in some way.
>> IOW, is the warning purely something along the lines of "Userspace is
>> doing something wonky, but the underlying FS will still be fine no
>> matter what" kind of deal, or could there be an actual problem with
>> the XFS metadata itself?
> Nothing wrong with the filesystem metadata will occur - as I said
> eariler in the thread that this is a warning to tell us that data
> corruption is possible due to userspace doing something stupid, not
> a filesystem bug.
OK, thanks for the clarification. Ideally these wouldn't taint the
kernel either -- perhaps these can be downgraded to a message that
explicitly suggests that nothing is wrong with kernel-space things,
only user-space? The backtrace doesn't really get you much, so really
all you want to show is the offending process...