Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:23:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx-01-bsl.sauter-bc.com (mx-01-bsl.sauter-bc.com [213.173.165.132]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with SMTP id hBA7MvTa003540 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:22:58 -0800 Received: from mailhub.ch.sauter-bc.com (mailhub.ch.sauter-bc.com [10.1.6.26]) by mx-01-bsl.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB1332CB7; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:22:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from av-01.ch.sauter-bc.com (av-01.ch.sauter-bc.com [10.1.6.28]) by mailhub.ch.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D63332CB5; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:22:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx-05-bsl.ch.sauter-bc.com ([10.1.6.20]) by av-01.ch.sauter-bc.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.2.35) with SMTP id M2003121008225029433 ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:22:50 +0100 Received: from webmail.ch.sauter-bc.com (imap01.ch.sauter-bc.com [10.1.6.25]) by mx-05-bsl.ch.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4518B4E20D; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:22:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from 10.1.200.117 (SquirrelMail authenticated user mattesim) by imap01.ch.sauter-bc.com with HTTP; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:22:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1432.10.1.200.117.1071040970.squirrel@imap01.ch.sauter-bc.com> In-Reply-To: <3FD5ED83.7000500@acu.ac.uk> References: <3FD5ED83.7000500@acu.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:22:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: XFS filesystem shutdown From: "Simon Matter" To: "Mike Brodbelt" Cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by oss.sgi.com id hBA7MxTa003543 X-archive-position: 1320 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: simon.matter@ch.sauter-bc.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs Content-Length: 2395 Lines: 65 > > I've been using XFS on numerous systems for about 2 years now, and I've > recently been bitten by a problem I've seen once or twice before, and > was wondering if anyone out there knows what the real cause of this is. > > Background:- > > Machine is a fairly heavily used server, hardware RAID-5 on 7 disks, > running Debian Woody with a vanilla kernel from kernel.org, patched with > the appropriate xfs-all (not the split) patch set. Currently:- > > SGI XFS snapshot-2.4.22-2003-10-10_04:57_UTC with no debug enabled > > The most heavily used filesystem is on /var, where there is a Cyrus imap > spool, resulting in lots of small files, and a lot of file activity. > There is a bug in the version of Cyrus I'm running which periodically > causes imapd child processes to sig11 and die. This may be entirely > unrelated, but could conceivably have some bearing on the situation. I've been running cyrus-imapd servers on XFS for years now without any problems related to XFS. I also had the sig11 and die problem but it never affected XFS, and I think it really should not. > > > Last week, I get this:- > > xfs_inotobp: xfs_imap() returned an error 22 on sd (8,8). Returning error. > xfs_iunlink_remove: xfs_inotobp() returned an error 22 on sd (8,8). > Returning an error. > xfs_inactive: 0xfs_ifree() error 22 on sd (8,8) > xfs_force_shutdown: (sd(8,8)0x1) called from line 1873 of file > xfs_vnodeops.c > Return address = 0x01ef8ba > File system sd (8,8): I/O error detected. ^^^^^^^^^ I'm not an expert for those error messages but I guess it unfortunately a hardware error, isn't it? Did you check dmesg output when this happened? Simon > Shutting down file system: sd (8,8) > Please umount the fs, & rectify the problem(s) > > Fixed by taking the machine single user, running xfs_repair over /var, > and then remounting the file-system. > > This has happened to this machine twice in a period of about 14 months, > and while it hasn't caused me serious trouble, it's evident from the XFS > FAQ that it shouldn't be happening, and I'd like to know why it is, and > if there's anything I can do about it. There's a bug report at > http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=274 which looks as though it > may be the same thing I'm seeing. > > I'd be interested to hear from anyone who can shed any more light on the > issue... > > Mike. > > > > >