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.
|