>Received: from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21])
	by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3462F57306; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:33:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ch.sauter-bc.com (support.cad.sba [10.1.200.117])
	by mobile.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B6B2C25835; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:41:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3B3C3C56.73D1C11C@ch.sauter-bc.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:29:10 +0200
From: Simon Matter <simon.matter@ch.sauter-bc.com>
Organization: Sauter AG, Basel
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [de] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19-6.2.7 i686)
X-Accept-Language: de-CH, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Seth Mos <knuffie@xs4all.nl>
Cc: Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com>, linux-xfs <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: XFS corruption on SoftRAID5
References: <200106282148.f5SLmfw24451@jen.americas.sgi.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010629090815.02e71aa8@pop.xs4all.nl>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

Seth Mos schrieb:
> 
> At 08:59 29-6-2001 +0200, Simon Matter wrote:
> >Steve Lord schrieb:
> > >
> > > > I don't know what to try anymore...
> > >
> > > First rule of bug reporting, which version of the kernel are you using?
> >I said PR1-PR3. I thought it's just the naming for the RH Kernels 1.0.1
> >release.
> > > Oh, and what type of NFS servers?
> >Okay, they are linux servers. kernel 2.2.16 and 2.0.36!. Just believe
> >me, they are not the problem.
> > >
> > > Details, details please.
> >Sorry
> >
> >Now, don't worry, it's not XFS!
> >I tried the same with ext2, same corruption.
> >I tried the same with SoftRAID 0, same corruption.
> >I tried the same with just one partition on one disk, NO problem!
> 
> Your complaining on the wrong list. See linux-kernel in that case.

I'm not complaining.

> Maybe a bit harsh but the md author might just be listening on the
> linux-kernel list.

Until today, it seemed to be XFS related.

> 
> The people here understand XFS all too well but they don't know the
> complete kernel in and out (could be wrong though). Another problem is that
> they unfortunately don't really have the time to fix all sorts of kernel bugs.
> 

You're right. But on this list we have all those people using big disks
and raid volumes. So if the problem was somehow XFS/SoftRAID related,
where could I ask.

> If you can produce a testcase in which you can generate corruption on the
> fs no matter what the fs is that would be helpful. Are you just seeing file
> names being garbled or ar the files themeselves also corrupt. What does a
> xfs_repair mention when you try to check it? Does it even report anything
> on that matter at all or does it decide to core dump because it's checking
> swiss cheese?

It's the filnames and the files themselve. The hole blockdevice seems to
be corrupted.
Its not XFS,not SoftRAID.
Its something in the IDE subsystem.

> 
> Can you check out the CVS tree and build a kernel with that to simulate it.
> 2.4.5+ makes a big difference relative to 2.4.3. There have been some raid
> fixes in the past time. And 2.4.6 is approaching in a rapid pace.
> 
> I'm placing my bet on the next version being 2.4.6.
> 
> If you build a new kernel with the CVS tree (currently at 2.4.6-pre6) and
> can test if you see corruption again that would be helpful. Then we at
> least now what issues remain for the 1.0.1 installer. Although shipping a
> 2.4.5 in 1.0.1 might not be possible.

Just tried rawhide 2.4.5-20010613 and it's exactly the same.

> 
> Bye
> 
> --
> Seth
> Every program has two purposes one for which
> it was written and another for which it wasn't
> I use the last kind.