xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Problems with kernel 3.6.x (vm ?) (was : Is kernel 3.6.1 or filestre

To: Yann Dupont <Yann.Dupont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Problems with kernel 3.6.x (vm ?) (was : Is kernel 3.6.1 or filestreams option toxic ?)
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:21:11 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <508E3A2E.20901@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <508554AF.5050005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <50865453.5080708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <508958FF.4000007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20121025211047.GD29378@dastard> <508A600C.1020109@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <508B092E.6070209@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20121028234802.GE4353@dastard> <20121029012540.GO29378@dastard> <508E3A2E.20901@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:11:26AM +0100, Yann Dupont wrote:
> Le 29/10/2012 02:25, Dave Chinner a écrit :
> >I can't reproduce this with a similar setup but using KVM (i.e.
> >killing the VM instead of power cycling) or forcing a shutdown of
> >the filesystem without flushing the log. The second case is very
> >much the same as power cycling, but without the potential "power
> >failure caused partial IOs to be written" problem. The only thing
> >I can see in the logprint that I haven't seen so far in my testing
> >is that your log print indicates a checkpoint that wraps the end
> >of the log. I haven't yet hit that situation by chance, so I'll
> >keep trying to see if that's the case that is causing the
> >problem.... Cheers, Dave.
> 
> Ok, is your kvm guest was lvm enabled ?

No. The idea being that if it is an XFS problem, then it will show
up without needing LVM. And it did.

> I'll try to recrash the FS, this time I'll make an image of it on
> another machine for further testings. And I'll supply a usefull
> logprint

No need, I have a simple local reproducer now based on your example.
I should be able to find the problem from here....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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