| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Corruption of in-memory data detected. |
| From: | Jan Derfinak <ja@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:58:24 +0200 (CEST) |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0509092130160.8548@alienAngel.home.sk> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0509082156530.9425@alienAngel.home.sk> <4321CDDD.8010607@gmx.net> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0509092130160.8548@alienAngel.home.sk> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Jan Derfinak wrote: > One more notice: I tried to use CONFIG_KEXEC on x86_64 and kernel could not > recognize XFS superblock. I didn't try it on i386. One more notice again: I played a little with xfs_db trying to find something wrong on my FS and I found that 'frag' command doesn't work: x86_64: xfsprogs-2.6.29 # xfs_db -r -c frag /dev/hda9 Segmentation fault # xfs_db -r -c frag /dev/hdb1 xfs_db: out of memory # xfs_db -r -c frag /dev/hdc5 Segmentation fault i386: xfsprogs-2.6.37 # xfs_db -r -c frag /dev/hda10 Segmentation fault How safe is 'noikeep' options? Can it be cause of instability? jan -- |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Corruption of in-memory data detected., Jan Derfinak |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Corruption of in-memory data detected., Chris Wedgwood |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Corruption of in-memory data detected., Jan Derfinak |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Corruption of in-memory data detected., Chris Wedgwood |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |