Andre Goree <andre@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 02/06/13 20:14, Gaetan Bisson wrote: >> [2013-02-06 19:06:45 -0500] Andre Goree: >>> Not really too keen on downgrading a bunch of packages that might >break >>> dependencies and provide a REAL mess. If I have to go through that >long >>> process, I'd rather just reinstall -- which at this point I'm >planning >>> to do anyways. >> >> Well, there is little point in posting to this list if you have no >> motivation to actually investigate the problem. >> >> For starters, you've upgraded Linux from 3.6.11 to 3.7.4 in the >window >> when you report the issue appeared; from the symptoms you described, >> it's a likely suspect. Downgrading it is far from being a "REAL >mess": >> you only need to downgrade/rebuild the external modules you really >need >> (probably none). > >Indeed there isn't, and surely even less point in replying to said post >if in fact I had no motivation. Given that I'm replying, I'd probably >like to avoid reinstalling if at all possible. I like the idea of >downgrading just the kernel -- obviously I mean downgrading every >package I've upgraded since 1/21 was not something I wanted to >undertake. I'll try this tomorrow. > >>> In fact it seems >>> all system processes hang because no logs are produced after the >issue >>> rears it's ugly head. >> >> Ah. So that would mean your issue is I/O related, then? > >It would seem so, yes. I hinted to this at the end of my last reply as >well. > >> >>>> So you produce nothing at work? >>> >>> Not sure if you're just being an ass or not, however if you aren't: >>> that has nothing at all to do with the issue and I merely wanted to >>> establish _why_ I was using btrfs on a machine that I have running >at my >>> job -- which is _also_ inconsequential in the context of my email. >If >>> you indeed were being an ass, congrats, you succeeded. >> >> Once you were done being offended, you could have looked for the >meaning >> behind the words I used: that your "main work desktop" really >qualifies >> as "a production server". >> >> But, of course, as you have so unequivocally declared, btrfs has >> absolutely "nothing at all to do with the issue". And your statement >> above implying that the problem is I/O related is just a coincidence. >> > >I think you mis-comprehended my reply. Following the context, I merely >meant that distinguishing my system from a production server and >explaining why I was running btrfs on this system was inconsequential >to >the issue at hand. Which is still true. I never said nor meant it to >be understood that I believed btrfs not to be the problem. In fact, >the >opposite is true. > >So, for the sake of clarity, I never declared (and certainly not >unequivocally) "btrfs has absolutely nothing at all to do with the >issue", but rather, my distinctions and reasons for running btrfs have >nothing to do with the issue. Not sure how you got that mixed up, >especially given the later part of my reply. > > >> Reporting issues is worthless when speculation is substituted for >hard >> data. For example, a good report would have gone: "I believe this >issue >> is unrelated to btrfs being my root filesystem since, on another Arch >> machine running ext3, I observe the following identical symptoms: >first, >> `ssh -vvv` hangs at exactly the same point; second..." > > >I'll be sure to raise my reporting standards the next time I'd like >help >from an Arch list, my apologies. > >>>> How about looking at the system logs to see what your system was up >to >>>> just before a crash? >>> >>> I've done that, with no real hints. That's the first thing any >linux >>> admin does when confronted with an issue such as this, no? >> >> Sure. But your first post gave no indication that you did that. > >Indeed, I need to raise my reporting standards, I figured a lot of >stuff >was implied but I now know I must be much clearer. Again, my >apologies. > > >>> Is there >>> perhaps a way to build Thunderbird with debug symbols or some kind >of >>> logging? I seem to recall opening Thunderbird each time this issue >has >>> showed up. >> >> Well it would be nice to confirm that it is indeed at fault; >downgrading >> it is certainly not a "REAL mess" either. You can certainly also >build >> it with debug symbols: in the PKGBUILD (or makepkg.conf), set >> CXXFLAGS='' LDFLAGS='' CFLAGS='-g' and remove the strip option. > > >Given that thunderbird wasn't upgraded in the time that this issue >began, not sure a downgrade would help but it may be worth a shot. >Thanks for the pointers on building with debug symbols. > > >>> I'm ready >>> to blame btrfs b/c that's the only issue I see with my setup -- I >also >>> have a tough time running a virtual machine on this box which I >believe >>> is also due to btrfs. >> >> Didn't you write just a few lines ago that btrfs "has nothing at all >to >> do with the issue"? > >I most certainly did not, there's an obvious misunderstanding here. > >> >> Wild guess: your thunderbird mail database is huge (just like the >disk >> image of your virtual machine - although I cannot really know what >you >> mean by "tough time") and your btrfs has problems dealing with such >big >> files (for instance, because your filesystem nearly full). To >confirm, >> start thunderbird with an empty profile (such as by renaming >~/.mozilla >> into ~/.mozilla.old) and see what happens. >> > >The thing is, this doesn't happen everytime I start thunderbird -- >rather, seemingly, after the system has been up for a long period (>20 >hrs or so). The filesystem is not nearly full either, though it does >contain a lot of data. I'm thinking downgrading to 3.6.x will help a >bit. I'm going to look for btrfs bugs in 3.7.x and see if anyone else >has been having a similar issue as well. Thanks for the assistance. For downgrading, I have found the Arch Rollback Machine quite handy. You can choose a date to roll back to, sync and then have pacman reinstall all packages that it finds are newer than its database. This is of course if there was not a significant change like potentially the recent filesyatem update. I would certainly try doing just the kernel first though, as that is even easier. Just thought I would mention that amazing tool we have in our debugging arsenal. Regards, -- Curtis Shimamoto sugar.and.scruffy@xxxxxxxxx
