xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Badness in key lookup (length)

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Badness in key lookup (length)
From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:51:58 +0100
In-reply-to: <492C9D65.2080302@sgi.com>
References: <200811252302.55944.Martin@Lichtvoll.de> <492C9D65.2080302@sgi.com> (sfid-20081126_093700_023988_A1E7DD35)
User-agent: KMail/1.9.9
Am Mittwoch 26 November 2008 schrieb Timothy Shimmin:
> Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I also checked my / XFS filesystem after that failed attempt to
> > hibernate via TuxOnIce (see my mail "truncated files"). Well BTW this
> > happened on a ThinkPad T42.
> >
> > While /home was fine, / had some rather minor - it seems - issues.
> > Whether they have been from today or from whenever - I do not know.
> >
> > xfs_check had stuff like
> >
> > agi unlinked bucket 0 is 8620800 in ag 0 (inode=8620800)
> > agi unlinked bucket 1 is 1181377 in ag 0 (inode=1181377)
> > agi unlinked bucket 2 is 8628866 in ag 0 (inode=8628866)
> > agi unlinked bucket 3 is 8620611 in ag 0 (inode=8620611)
> > agi unlinked bucket 4 is 1181380 in ag 0 (inode=1181380)
> > agi unlinked bucket 5 is 7711173 in ag 0 (inode=7711173)
> > agi unlinked bucket 6 is 7711174 in ag 0 (inode=7711174)
> > [...]
> > allocated inode 207025 has 0 link count
> > allocated inode 207029 has 0 link count
> > allocated inode 207118 has 0 link count
> > allocated inode 7711173 has 0 link count
> > allocated inode 7711174 has 0 link count
> > allocated inode 7711197 has 0 link count
> >
> > Which are due to references to deleted files AFAIK.
>
> Yep, inodes which were unlinked but still had references to them
> when the filesystem was taken down without cleanly unmounting.
> There is a hash table of buckets which point to linked lists of
> unlinked inodes. These are then supposed to be cleaned up during the
> log-replay stage on mount.
> I presume (sorry for asking but just checking :-) that you mounted the
> filesystem first - you would have gotten an error message if there was
> a dirty log anyway. And if you didn't mount first, did you get the
> error message? Just curious.

I did mount first ;-). I know its better to avoid xfs_repair -L ;-)

Indeed it was not unmounted cleanly:

Nov 25 13:16:39 shambhala kernel: XFS mounting filesystem sda5
Nov 25 13:16:39 shambhala kernel: Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: 
sda5 (logdev: internal)
Nov 25 13:16:39 shambhala kernel: Ending XFS recovery on filesystem: sda5 
(logdev: internal)

I wonder about those "Badness in key lookup (length)" messages of 
xfs_repair 2.9.8 touch.

-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

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