Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*2\.6\.13\.2\s+amd64\:\s+XFS\:\s+xlog_recover_process_data\:\s+bad\s+clientid\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:36:42 -0600
linux@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Is the problematic filesystem on the aforementioned flakey driver? Yes. Sorry I wasn't clear. The SATA driver hung (the machine was still "up", but with all the root FS inacc
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00003.html (9,627 bytes)

2. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: linux@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 1 Nov 2005 18:32:37 -0500
Yes. Sorry I wasn't clear. The SATA driver hung (the machine was still "up", but with all the root FS inaccessible, I couldn't do much), and when I rebooted it, the root FS wouldn't come back. I cou
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00004.html (9,161 bytes)

3. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: linux@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 1 Nov 2005 20:17:53 -0500
I assure you, I don't expect perfection in the face of such flakiness, but it did seem a little bit less than robust. Mostly, I'm wondering: - Can we extract any information about what misbehaved to
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00005.html (9,508 bytes)

4. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:45:39 -0600
linux@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Well, xfs does assume that if the underlying IO layers tell it that something is written, that it is in fact written. Depending on the level of flakiness in your SATA driver,
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00006.html (10,914 bytes)

5. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: linux@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 2 Nov 2005 14:07:44 -0500
Ah, it complains about an unflushed log and won't run. It might be a worthwhile addition to the sfs_repair man page to mention that "-n" implies "-L". If it is indeed the case that the *only* code w
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00012.html (9,983 bytes)

6. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: linux@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 2 Nov 2005 17:18:00 -0500
Just some more info... I ran xfs_repair -L, but then ran xfs_check, and it found a lot of problems remaining, in particular a lot of: link count mismatch for inode 514608143 (name ?), nlink 4, counte
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00015.html (11,371 bytes)

7. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: linux@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 3 Nov 2005 15:33:13 -0500
Ah! The *second* xfs_repair run ended in a segfault.... (xfs_repair version 2.6.36, debian package xfsprogs 2.6.36-1) I'm trying a third... Phase 1 - find and verify superblock... Phase 2 - using int
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00027.html (15,498 bytes)

8. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:36:42 -0600
linux@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Is the problematic filesystem on the aforementioned flakey driver? Yes. Sorry I wasn't clear. The SATA driver hung (the machine was still "up", but with all the root FS inacc
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00158.html (9,627 bytes)

9. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: linux@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 1 Nov 2005 18:32:37 -0500
Yes. Sorry I wasn't clear. The SATA driver hung (the machine was still "up", but with all the root FS inaccessible, I couldn't do much), and when I rebooted it, the root FS wouldn't come back. I cou
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00159.html (9,161 bytes)

10. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: linux@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 1 Nov 2005 20:17:53 -0500
I assure you, I don't expect perfection in the face of such flakiness, but it did seem a little bit less than robust. Mostly, I'm wondering: - Can we extract any information about what misbehaved to
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00160.html (9,508 bytes)

11. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:45:39 -0600
linux@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Well, xfs does assume that if the underlying IO layers tell it that something is written, that it is in fact written. Depending on the level of flakiness in your SATA driver,
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00161.html (10,914 bytes)

12. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: linux@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 2 Nov 2005 14:07:44 -0500
Ah, it complains about an unflushed log and won't run. It might be a worthwhile addition to the sfs_repair man page to mention that "-n" implies "-L". If it is indeed the case that the *only* code w
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00167.html (9,983 bytes)

13. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: linux@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 2 Nov 2005 17:18:00 -0500
Just some more info... I ran xfs_repair -L, but then ran xfs_check, and it found a lot of problems remaining, in particular a lot of: link count mismatch for inode 514608143 (name ?), nlink 4, counte
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00170.html (11,371 bytes)

14. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: linux@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 3 Nov 2005 15:33:13 -0500
Ah! The *second* xfs_repair run ended in a segfault.... (xfs_repair version 2.6.36, debian package xfsprogs 2.6.36-1) I'm trying a third... Phase 1 - find and verify superblock... Phase 2 - using int
/archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00182.html (15,498 bytes)

15. 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: linux@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 31 Oct 2005 23:05:13 -0500
I've been having hard-to-reproduce sata_sil24 driver problems, and the most recent lockup appears to have taken out my root file system. (Hooray for emergency boot partitions!) mount: /dev/md4: can't
/archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00139.html (30,110 bytes)

16. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:59:41 -0600 (CST)
Is the problematic filesystem on the aforementioned flakey driver? Any kernel messages prior to the fs problems? (related to underlying IO problems?) -Eric
/archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00140.html (7,718 bytes)

17. 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: linux@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 31 Oct 2005 23:05:13 -0500
I've been having hard-to-reproduce sata_sil24 driver problems, and the most recent lockup appears to have taken out my root file system. (Hooray for emergency boot partitions!) mount: /dev/md4: can't
/archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00280.html (30,110 bytes)

18. Re: 2.6.13.2 amd64: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:59:41 -0600 (CST)
Is the problematic filesystem on the aforementioned flakey driver? Any kernel messages prior to the fs problems? (related to underlying IO problems?) -Eric
/archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00281.html (7,718 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu