/proc/sys/fs/xfs/error_level is set to 3 on the box in question.
What is the error message i'm getting actually telling me ?
- corrupt filesystem structure ?
- corrupt inode ?
- it just ran out of space ? ( i didn't think this was the case as i still get
problems after freeing up some free space)
I'm guessing that what happens is that at the full-volume case is hit, an
allocation goes wrong and the structures on disc don't get written out
properly, so from that point on the fs is messed up.
What puzzles me is that xfs_repair and xfs_check NEVER find any problems even
while i'm getting these errors out of dmesg.
regards,
Scott Fagg <scott.fagg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Arup Brisbane
(07) 3023 6000
>>> Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> 08/08/2003 1:50:13 PM >>>
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Scott Fagg wrote:
>
> I spoke too soon, the problem has resurfaced.
>
> Not as bad as before. I filled the volume up, got no errors. But at some
> point after that, quite possibly during an xfs_check or xfs_repair OR
> deleting large chunks of data the problem resurfaced.
>
> I fear that it's probably beyond my to fix this ( kernerl filesystem drivers
> is not one of my strong points ). I'm trying to work out exactly what the
> error is telling my. What is the implication of XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW vs
> XFS_ERRLEVEL_HIGH ? ( a google search turned up nothing ).
It works with /proc/sys/fs/xfs/error_level, to determine when more verbose
errors should be printed to the syslog. /proc/sys/fs/xfs/error_level
works like a volume control - from 0 to 11, with 11 being the noisiest
(i.e. the most information printed for the least severe errors)
There are actually only a few "detents" on the volume control though,
so you won't notice a difference between, say, 4 and 5, currently.
-Eric
|