Re: xfs_force_shutdown with linux-2.4.6-xfs-07052001?

["Andreas Abach" <listreader@lkt.uni-erlangen.de>]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:02:27 +0200 (CEST), Seth Mos wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, KELEMEN Peter wrote:
>
>> * Seth Mos (knuffie@xs4all.nl) [20010801 09:46]:
>> 
>> > That is probably caused by an IO error. I see you are using lvm
>> > which could be related.  If an IO error occurs the filesystem
>> > will shutdown to prevent more damage.
>> 
>> Well.  I checked the hard drive (read-only) in another machine, it
>> reports no errors.  S.M.A.R.T. is happy, no relocated sectors or
>> raw read, seek or CRC errors.  Nothing.
>
>That counters the hardware site.
No, I don't believe this. I think it's an xfs problem. I've got similar problems.
I copy about 120 GB of files to an xfs filesystem and get errors. When I change the filesystem type from xfs to ext2 on errors occur during copying.

Andreas

System:
Debian/GNU Linux (unstable) on a PC equipped with a Pentium III-450 
(Katmai), 192 M of RAM, and a RAID (easyRAID II) with 165 GB hooked to an 
Adaptec AIC-7881U SCSI host adapter. The kernel I'm using is 2.4.6 with XFS 
patch "linux-2.4.6-xfs-07052001" applied.

Soon after I've written some gigs of data I'm seeing the following in 
/var/log/messages:

Jul 31 14:06:43 server kernel: xfs_force_shutdown(sd(8,5),0x1) called from line 
1013 of file xfs_trans.c.  Return address = 0xcc8e71b3
Jul 31 14:06:43 server kernel: I/O Error Detected.  Shutting down filesystem: sd
(8,5)
Jul 31 14:06:43 server kernel: Please umount the filesystem, and rectify the 
problem(s)
>
>> > This error could be on the device (bad cluster on the disk) or
>> > something in a software layer like md or lvm going wrong which
>> > is seen by XFS as a hardware error.  What is actually the lvm
>> > device. Do you use md or any other software that might
>> > interfere?  IDE or scsi and what controller and system. How is
>> > the lvm device constructed.
>> 
>> EIDE, no UDMA.  No MD at all, LVM is pretty straightforward, a
>> lonely 20G disk sliced into two, sitting in an extended partition.
>> A big partition is actually the only PV, carrying a VG with six
>> LVs.  No magic, this is supposed to be a workstation.  Kernel is
>> tracked CVS, compiled with egcs-1.1.2.  No overclock.
>
>That indeed seems very simple. The problem is that it is hard to debug
>since it will probably be extrmely hard to replicate. If you can find a
>way to reproduce this, let us know please. We'd love to squash XFS related
>bugs ;-)
>
>I have absolutely zipp experience with LVM so I can't comment on any
>problems on that front.
>
>> The thing hasn't happened since (knock on wood).
>
>Good luck then, you will need it for the next knock on wood.
>
>Cheers
>
>