[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS corruption on SoftRAID5

To: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS corruption on SoftRAID5
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:27:12 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <3B3C2758.98143EAF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200106282148.f5SLmfw24451@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 08:59 29-6-2001 +0200, Simon Matter wrote:
Steve Lord schrieb:
> > I don't know what to try anymore...
> First rule of bug reporting, which version of the kernel are you using?
I said PR1-PR3. I thought it's just the naming for the RH Kernels 1.0.1
> Oh, and what type of NFS servers?
Okay, they are linux servers. kernel 2.2.16 and 2.0.36!. Just believe
me, they are not the problem.
> Details, details please.

Now, don't worry, it's not XFS!
I tried the same with ext2, same corruption.
I tried the same with SoftRAID 0, same corruption.
I tried the same with just one partition on one disk, NO problem!

Your complaining on the wrong list. See linux-kernel in that case.
Maybe a bit harsh but the md author might just be listening on the linux-kernel list.

The people here understand XFS all too well but they don't know the complete kernel in and out (could be wrong though). Another problem is that they unfortunately don't really have the time to fix all sorts of kernel bugs.

If you can produce a testcase in which you can generate corruption on the fs no matter what the fs is that would be helpful. Are you just seeing file names being garbled or ar the files themeselves also corrupt. What does a xfs_repair mention when you try to check it? Does it even report anything on that matter at all or does it decide to core dump because it's checking swiss cheese?

Can you check out the CVS tree and build a kernel with that to simulate it. 2.4.5+ makes a big difference relative to 2.4.3. There have been some raid fixes in the past time. And 2.4.6 is approaching in a rapid pace.

I'm placing my bet on the next version being 2.4.6.

If you build a new kernel with the CVS tree (currently at 2.4.6-pre6) and can test if you see corruption again that would be helpful. Then we at least now what issues remain for the 1.0.1 installer. Although shipping a 2.4.5 in 1.0.1 might not be possible.


Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>