- 1. XFS: I/O Error Detected / 2.6.27.39 (score: 1)
- Author: Piotr Kandziora <piotr.kandziora@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:10:51 +0100
- Hi, Our environment is following: - we have 24GB RAM, - we are using 3ware controller (and it does not report any errors), - we have one big logical volume (20TB) exported via NFS with large amount o
- /archives/xfs/2010-11/msg00227.html (8,738 bytes)
- 2. Re: XFS: I/O Error Detected / 2.6.27.39 (score: 1)
- Author: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:44:15 +0100
- Le Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:10:51 +0100 vous écriviez: What model? 9550SX? 9650SE? 9690SA? 9750 ? What distribution, architecture? What is the version of xfs tools (try xfs_info -V for instance)? What are
- /archives/xfs/2010-11/msg00245.html (10,449 bytes)
- 3. Re: XFS: I/O Error Detected / 2.6.27.39 (score: 1)
- Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:54:06 -0600
- so this got EINVAL: which shut down the filesystem: leading to IO errors after that: I'd probably start with xfs_repair (with -n if you want a dry run) and see if it finds any metadata corruption, fi
- /archives/xfs/2010-11/msg00247.html (10,221 bytes)
- 4. Re: XFS: I/O Error Detected / 2.6.27.39 (score: 1)
- Author: Piotr Kandziora <piotr.kandziora@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:43:12 +0100
- Emmanuel, Below answers for your questions. Le Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:10:51 +0100 vous écriviez: Hi, Our environment is following: - we have 24GB RAM, - we are using 3ware controller (and it does not re
- /archives/xfs/2010-11/msg00271.html (19,318 bytes)
- 5. Re: XFS: I/O Error Detected / 2.6.27.39 (score: 1)
- Author: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:35:17 +0100
- Le Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:43:12 +0100 Piotr Kandziora <piotr.kandziora@xxxxxxxxxx> écrivait: So this isn't a case of 32 bits rsync running out of memory (case seen...) This is abnormal, but kernel disk
- /archives/xfs/2010-11/msg00272.html (10,382 bytes)
- 6. Re: XFS: I/O Error Detected / 2.6.27.39 (score: 1)
- Author: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:17:37 +0100
- You should really use 3.1.x, but maybe "xfs tools" has a different numbering than "xfsprogs"? xfs_repair -V should show 3.1.x at least. -- mit freundlichen Grüssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-mana
- /archives/xfs/2010-11/msg00278.html (9,546 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu