| To: | Michael-John Turner <mj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS/driver bug or bad drive? |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:24:41 -0500 |
| Cc: | David Engel <david@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20091007112959.GA17132@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20091001232759.GA12832@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4AC54BDA.20806@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20091002165704.GA17558@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091007112959.GA17132@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) |
Michael-John Turner wrote: On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 11:57:04AM -0500, David Engel wrote:I agree it shouldn't be an xfs bug. I thought it was strange, though, that the problem only seemed to show up with xfs on 2.6.30.x. IO pattern sensitivity wouldn't surprise me, but I wanted to check all my bases before giving up on the drive.Rather curiously, I had exactly the same issue with the same model drive this past weekend. Debian-patched 2.6.26 kernel, however, though also with XFS (on top of md/LVM). Interestingly, there were no SMART errors and a full SMART test passed. The error was triggered by doing a cvs update on my working copy of the NetBSD source tree - not a large copy, but a disk-intensive activity. -mj Firmware bug? I still think it can't be an xfs problem, and I'm not just trying to be protective of our turf ;) -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS/driver bug or bad drive?, Michael-John Turner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS/driver bug or bad drive?, Michael-John Turner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS/driver bug or bad drive?, Michael-John Turner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS/driver bug or bad drive?, Michael-John Turner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |