Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*cache_purge\:\s+shake\s+on\s+cache\s+0x5880a0\s+left\s+8\s+nodes\!\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*cache_purge\:\s+shake\s+on\s+cache\s+0x5880a0\s+left\s+8\s+nodes\!\?\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author: Paul Slootman <paul@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:42:22 +0200; I had problems due to the well-known endian bug. I first ran xfs_repair on it from the standard Debian package, version 2.6.20. That gave a lot of output (which can be found at http://www.xs4all.nl/; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00077.html (9,125 bytes)
2. RE: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:30:08 +1000; Hi Paul, What you are seeing is fine. The current libxfs cache with the directory update code is leaving some blocks referenced, and the libxfs code is printing out these blocks with outstanding refe; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00080.html (10,693 bytes)
3. Re: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author: Paul Slootman <paul@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:02:18 +0200; Hmmm.... Unfortunately, the filesystem panicked again last night. This was after the double repair, and rebooting into 2.6.17.7, which shouldn't have the bug, right? I'll run another repair now :-( P; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00083.html (10,512 bytes)
4. Re: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author: Paul Slootman <paul@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:14:51 +0200; And again. Curious fact appeared: the lost+found directory from the first time (which I had moved to lost+found.x) could not be removed "Directory not empty". This would indicate that the CVS repair; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00094.html (9,239 bytes)
5. Re: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:59:27 -0700; do subsequent xfs_repair runs go silent? if not then you've probably hit a case where it's leaving something icky behind and you have to manually poke it using xfs_db (i had this myself); /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00109.html (8,905 bytes)
6. Re: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author: Paul Slootman <paul@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:55:27 +0200; No, these particular messages didn't reoccur, although I've been having a lot of trouble with that filesystem (see my other message today). Paul Slootman; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00111.html (9,354 bytes)
7. RE: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:49:13 +1000; Do you still have the filesystem with the undeletable directory? If so, can you run xfs_db and email me the contents of that directory? The commands would be: <inum> lost+found.x/. "u.sfdir2.etc", d; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00113.html (10,353 bytes)
8. Re: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author: Paul Slootman <paul@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:55:47 +0200; No, as I wrote, I zapped it with xfs_db and the subsequent xfs_repair cleaned it up. Thanks for your concern however. Paul Slootman; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00118.html (8,823 bytes)
9. cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:42:22 +0200; I had problems due to the well-known endian bug. I first ran xfs_repair on it from the standard Debian package, version 2.6.20. That gave a lot of output (which can be found at http://www.xs4all.nl/; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00329.html (9,125 bytes)
10. RE: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:30:08 +1000; Hi Paul, What you are seeing is fine. The current libxfs cache with the directory update code is leaving some blocks referenced, and the libxfs code is printing out these blocks with outstanding refe; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00332.html (10,693 bytes)
11. Re: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:02:18 +0200; Hmmm.... Unfortunately, the filesystem panicked again last night. This was after the double repair, and rebooting into 2.6.17.7, which shouldn't have the bug, right? I'll run another repair now :-( P; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00335.html (10,512 bytes)
12. Re: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author:; Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:14:51 +0200; And again. Curious fact appeared: the lost+found directory from the first time (which I had moved to lost+found.x) could not be removed "Directory not empty". This would indicate that the CVS repair; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00346.html (9,239 bytes)
13. Re: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author:; Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:59:27 -0700; do subsequent xfs_repair runs go silent? if not then you've probably hit a case where it's leaving something icky behind and you have to manually poke it using xfs_db (i had this myself); /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00361.html (8,905 bytes)
14. Re: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author:; Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:55:27 +0200; No, these particular messages didn't reoccur, although I've been having a lot of trouble with that filesystem (see my other message today). Paul Slootman; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00363.html (9,354 bytes)
15. RE: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author:; Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:49:13 +1000; Do you still have the filesystem with the undeletable directory? If so, can you run xfs_db and email me the contents of that directory? The commands would be: <inum> lost+found.x/. "u.sfdir2.etc", d; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00365.html (10,353 bytes)
16. Re: cache_purge: shake on cache 0x5880a0 left 8 nodes!? (score: 1): Author:; Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:55:47 +0200; No, as I wrote, I zapped it with xfs_db and the subsequent xfs_repair cleaned it up. Thanks for your concern however. Paul Slootman; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00370.html (8,823 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]