xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: hello, my xfs has a probelm. does anybody know this?thank you

To: "zhengbin.08747@xxxxxxx" <zhengbin.08747@xxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: hello, my xfs has a probelm. does anybody know this?thank you
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:54:00 -0500
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <7B5C2F2226F8AF419D625C6097AD814C5E26FE9C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <7B5C2F2226F8AF419D625C6097AD814C5E26FE9C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 8/25/15 4:08 AM, zhengbin.08747@xxxxxxx wrote:
> My OS is redhat7.1, the version of Linux kernel is “Linux version 
> 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64”
> 
> Sometime xfs give a message like this
> 
> Aug 11 15:51:05 localhost kernel: XFS (dm-4): metadata I/O error: block 
> 0x7d9a010 ("xfs_trans_read_buf_map") error 117 numblks 16
> Aug 11 15:51:05 localhost kernel: XFS (dm-4): xfs_imap_to_bp: 
> xfs_trans_read_buf() returned error 117. 
> Aug 11 15:31:08 localhost kernel: XFS (dm-4): Metadata corruption detected at 
> xfs_inode_buf_verify+0x75/0xd0 [xfs], block 0x7d9a010
> Aug 11 15:31:08 localhost kernel: XFS (dm-4): Unmount and run xfs_repair

Did you try running xfs_repair (or possibly better for the first run, do 
xfs_repair -n, to do a check-only run?)

> Aug 11 15:31:08 localhost kernel: XFS (dm-4): First 64 bytes of corrupted 
> metadata buffer:
> Aug 11 15:31:08 localhost kernel: ffff88089144a000: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 
> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
> Aug 11 15:31:08 localhost kernel: ffff88089144a010: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 
> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
> Aug 11 15:31:08 localhost kernel: ffff88089144a020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 
> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
> Aug 11 15:31:08 localhost kernel: ffff88089144a030: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 
> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................

So it seems to have read a completely zeroed-out block.

Isn't there a stack trace after this part of the message?
Hm I guess not; if you can hit it again, try 

# sysctl -w fs.xfs.error_level=11

to turn up the error reporting level.


Any chance that this is a thinly provisioned device?  Or what type of dm device 
is it?

> So is this a bug of xfs? or is the device’s error(the device actually did not 
> save the data, but give xfs success message)?

Hard to say at this point.

-Eric

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