xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfsdump not work in 3.17

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfsdump not work in 3.17
From: "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:16:44 -0400
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dj7KBoGWkdWhDj35WaEi3LQgG9KVE2u/MugCU8QPqmk=; b=B8nS/YdbKC2GFYOHatBFh900asKin71WQEQtcaYVDmtl/tD/XZFKgBDejahblH92iU bgwEk+eCX9XK87XxINO9zxTs3iR6QcecvnPL1s1kAN9ayIJ5b9atm9qwh400iNqJpGVv tRohhRvksWdPdIlDpq/w3ghBUX+jnRo7b67U6TtMU2JQCkHZz9L/2vefpAIS98HiBm5u 7BlOHLAh100M5WXuigBCDsY3/F/nzL019M8D8wdKNk5qVjQoI+O9lj8gRtWNmJkqyFYx hh0r0r6cEtsc38YxfTqCD6cRDcm2vG9gKr0QiJsAJA3Yz8O/DpZm3yoZrwxk6n+iRmyk tECg==
In-reply-to: <543F3C9A.4060603@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAGdb-8dvNOdBfZ3K_g_o22vN30yBJN+pwr-0sORC+Aubv5=9Cg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <543F3C9A.4060603@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2
On 10/15/14 23:33, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/15/14 9:31 PM, Tommy Wu wrote:
Hi!

    xfsdump 3.1.4
    xfsprogs 3.2.1
    linux kerenl 3.17/3.17.1


...

    It just create  a small dump file, and if I run the same xfsdump again (or 
umount the filesystem), it will hang, like:

fw1:/vol/backup/fw1# /sbin/xfsdump -v trace,drive=debug,media=debug -l 0 -o -J -F 
- /dev/vg/root | gzip > test.gz
/sbin/xfsdump: using file dump (drive_simple) strategy
/sbin/xfsdump: version 3.1.4 (dump format 3.0)
/sbin/xfsdump: level 0 dump of fw1.teatime.com.tw:/
/sbin/xfsdump: dump date: Thu Oct 16 10:30:09 2014
/sbin/xfsdump: session id: b8354300-d54c-4131-b39c-7c0b63968208
/sbin/xfsdump: session label: ""
/sbin/xfsdump: ino map phase 1: constructing initial dump list


    switch back to kernel 3.16, the same command work fine.


http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/fs/xfs?id=a8b1ee8bafc765ebf029d03c5479a69aebff9693

addresses the small backup file, and

[PATCH] xfs: bulkstat doesn't release AGI buffer on error

(on the list) most likely addresses the hang, I think.

-Eric

Thanks!  I'm still looking for that one good recipe to fix xfsdump in my i686
Pentium 4 dungeon here, currently using yesterday morning's git kernel +
xfs-oss/for-next.  The test dataset is a basic slackware-current setup,
regular kernel source, -stable kernel source, on v5-superblock/finobt XFS
(mkfs.xfs -m crc=1,finobt=1 ...).  The dataset uses about 7 GB of disk space.

This letter is half-baked thoughts, only here to express the idea "don't think
you're out of the woods yet!" in some primitive manner.

The first patch seems to get rid of the earliest xfsdump premature SUCCESS, the
one where xfsdump ran for less than 10 seconds and left a dump file of less than
1 MB.  BTW, in the commit message and to `git log xfs-oss/for-next`, the commit
message for the patch starts "caused a regression in xfs_inumbers" but does not
mention which commit caused the regression.

With the second patch applied, the dump size increases to about 1 decimal GB
before exiting, same size in three different runs.

I think I tried the patch "xfs: Check error during inode btree iteration in
xfs_bulkstat()"--no other similar patches in my mailing list patchset download--
and xfsdump dumped up to 1.2 decimal GB, same size in two different runs.

These patches are being run through xfstests as I work, so there's nothing
there to report yet.

It was only this morning that I got tar to complete a system backup without
asserting in some way (hangcheck timer expires, stack varies), and the last
oops got into that uncomfortable xfs_dir3_leaf area.  Should this happen
again, I'll either post some traces or the output of `xfsdump -v 3 ...`  I was
rushed into work today and couldn't grab the logs.

Should `xfsdump -v 3 ...` report SUCCESS for one code and an error for the
second return code, that second code has been "unknown error."  I've never run
xfsdump at -v 3 before and don't know if that is normal.

The rest is still being fleshed out.  tar seems to be OK, so long as xfsdump
has not been invoked beforehand.  tar has not been run enough times to get a
true 1:1 correlation on it, though.  The current goal is to reconstruct the
filesystem and see if all problems magically go away.  So far, xfs_repair has
reported no errors on this filesystem.

Thanks!

Michael

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