xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: alpha again

To: Thomas Graichen <graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: alpha again
From: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:53:10 -0400
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Thomas Graichen <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@innominate.de> "alpha again" (Nov 24, 6:50pm)
References: <news2mail-8vmd9o$upi$1@mate.bln.innominate.de>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
hi,

On Nov 24,  6:50pm, Thomas Graichen wrote:
> Subject: alpha again
> just another try ... maybe someone has an idea now :-)
> 

what does "xfs_db -r -c agf -c p /dev/sdb1" say at each
point (*) below.

> root@cyan:/usr/src/xfs/linux# mkfs -t xfs -f -b size=8192 /dev/sdb1  
> meta-data=/dev/sdb1              isize=256    agcount=8, agsize=4142 blks
> data     =                       bsize=8192   blocks=33130, imaxpct=25
>          =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks, unwritten=0
> naming   =version 2              bsize=8192  
> log      =internal log           bsize=8192   blocks=1000
> realtime =none                   extsz=65536  blocks=0, rtextents=0

(*) here

> root@cyan:/usr/src/xfs/linux# mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt
> root@cyan:/usr/src/xfs/linux# umount /mnt

(*) here

> root@cyan:/usr/src/xfs/linux# xfs_repair /dev/sdb1
> Phase 1 - find and verify superblock...
> Phase 2 - using internal log
>         - zero log...
>         - scan filesystem freespace and inode maps...
> bad magic # 0x0 for agf 0
> bad version # -1 for agf 0
> bad length 0 for agf 0, should be 4142
> flfirst -2147483648 in agf 0 too large (max = 128)
> reset bad agf for ag 0
> freeblk count 1 != flcount 1084270339 in ag 0
> bad agbno 2966461184 for btbno root, agno 0
> bad agbno 16580607 for btbcnt root, agno 0
>         - found root inode chunk
> Phase 3 - for each AG...
>         - scan and clear agi unlinked lists...
>         - process known inodes and perform inode discovery...
>         - agno = 0
>         - agno = 1
>         - agno = 2
>         - agno = 3
> ...

and (*) here.

(could you send me the output in each place - thanks).

> 
> looks for me a little bit like some kind of maybe size problems
> in some structure alignments or so ... aside from this i can
> run a dbench 64 without problems on the alpha ... looks
> like it's a more harmless and well located problem
> 

I'm a little surprised that we can get thru dbench with what
seem like such fundamental problems... hmm - perhaps its only
a userspace problem (seeking to the wrong place or something).

cheers.

-- 
Nathan

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