xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs bug in 2.6.17.9?

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs bug in 2.6.17.9?
From: Stian Jordet <liste@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:38:48 +0200
Cc: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1156486538.6854.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <92b7ea0a0608240245v700f19dex6ecb688efcab657b@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608240942180.30908@p34.internal.lan> <1156463263.19666.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060825115858.A3029472@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <1156486538.6854.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
Stian Jordet wrote:
fre, 25,.08.2006 kl. 11.58 +1000, skrev Nathan Scott:
This is likely to be lost+found being recreated each time, its
normal if you don't do something about the lost+found files -
once those are renamed/removed, it should run cleanly.

You seem to be right about that :)

But when I wake up this morning, I had my logs full of this:

0x0: 24 73 74 61 74 73 20 3d 20 7b 0a 20 20 27 73 68
Filesystem "rd/c0d1p1": XFS internal error xfs_da_do_buf(2) at line 2212
of file fs/xfs/xfs_da_btree.c.  Caller 0xc029d81c
 <c02b0b0b> xfs_corruption_error+0x10b/0x140  <c029d81c> xfs_da_read_buf
+0x3c/0x40
 <c02e10a1> kmem_zone_alloc+0x61/0xe0  <c029cd9a> xfs_da_buf_make
+0xfa/0x150
 <c029d719> xfs_da_do_buf+0x929/0x980  <c029d81c> xfs_da_read_buf
+0x3c/0x40
 <c029d81c> xfs_da_read_buf+0x3c/0x40  <c02a05fd> xfs_da_node_lookup_int
+0xcd/0x3b0
 <c02a05fd> xfs_da_node_lookup_int+0xcd/0x3b0  <c02a899f>
xfs_dir2_node_lookup+0x3f/0xc0
 <c02a325a> xfs_dir2_lookup+0x12a/0x130  <c02e91e6> xfs_vn_permission
+0x26/0x30
 <c016e220> vfs_permission+0x20/0x30  <c016e84a> __link_path_walk
+0x8a/0xfa0
 <c02d58cc> xfs_dir_lookup_int+0x4c/0x130  <c02da1fe> xfs_lookup
+0x7e/0xa0
 <c02e963e> xfs_vn_lookup+0x4e/0x90  <c016e119> __lookup_hash+0xe9/0x120
 <c0170088> do_unlinkat+0xa8/0x170  <c0168947> sys_stat64+0x27/0x30
 <c0102fcf> syscall_call+0x7/0xb

Don't know how many times, but many! Is that related to anything...?

It seems I just hadn't used a recent enough xfs_repair with that filesystem. Seems good now. Just one last question, are you 99,5% sure that this is the symptoms of that corruption bug in 2.6.17? So I can assume that my memory wasn't the problem? I'm now running with only 512MB (which I'm sure is good), and I don't want to use the new memory if I get this problem again (even though I have good backups, it's a hell of a job fixing it again...)


Thank you.

Best regards,
Stian


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