Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Two\s+XFS\s+involving\s+stack\s+traces\s+from\s+Debian\'s\s+2\.6\.26\-2\-amd64\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Two\s+XFS\s+involving\s+stack\s+traces\s+from\s+Debian\'s\s+2\.6\.26\-2\-amd64\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. Two XFS involving stack traces from Debian's 2.6.26-2-amd64 (score: 1): Author: Stuart Rowan <strr-debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:34:10 +0100; Hi, I suspect the list will not be overly interested in these due to it being triggered on a non-cutting edge, vendor kernel but I'll post them anyway -- just in case there's an obvious "Debian shoul; /archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00000.html (13,017 bytes)
2. Re: Two XFS involving stack traces from Debian's 2.6.26-2-amd64 (score: 1): Author: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 12:44:37 +0200; Why don't you umount /tmp/$from && /sbin/lvremove -f /dev/$vgroup/snap-shot && rmdir /tmp/$from from your script so this won't happen again? Or make a loop around umount? mfg zmi -- // Michael Monner; /archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00001.html (7,647 bytes)
3. Re: Two XFS involving stack traces from Debian's 2.6.26-2-amd64 (score: 1): Author: Stuart Rowan <strr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:14:24 +0100; Michael Monnerie wrote, on 01/10/09 11:44: On Donnerstag 01 Oktober 2009 Stuart Rowan wrote: umount /tmp/$from ; /sbin/lvremove -f /dev/$vgroup/snap-shot ; rmdir /tmp/$from Why don't you umount /tmp/; /archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00002.html (9,153 bytes)
4. Re: Two XFS involving stack traces from Debian's 2.6.26-2-amd64 (score: 1): Author: Stuart Rowan <strr-debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:14:44 +0100; Michael Monnerie wrote, on 01/10/09 11:44: On Donnerstag 01 Oktober 2009 Stuart Rowan wrote: umount /tmp/$from ; /sbin/lvremove -f /dev/$vgroup/snap-shot ; rmdir /tmp/$from Why don't you umount /tmp/; /archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00003.html (8,616 bytes)
5. RE: Two XFS involving stack traces from Debian's 2.6.26-2-amd64 (score: 1): Author: "Michael Monnerie" <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 23:17:56 +0200; I've had the same problem with a backup script to a NAS. It takes a long time until the buffers flush or so, a loop with up to 5 umount retries has to be done. But that works always, at least ;-) Ev; /archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00005.html (8,684 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]