xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Corruption of in-memory data detected.

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0509082156530.9425@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4321CDDD.8010607@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0509092130160.8548@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>