On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:51:25 -0400, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> said: > That's a possible theory; but in order for that to be true, not only > would you be left with a directory entry pointing at a deleted inode, > you would also have an inode with either no directory entry pointed at > it, or if the inode was hard-linked, an incorrect reference count. > > So the e2fsck transcript should also have showed an unreferenced inode > which it would offer to move to the lost+found directory, or an > indication of some inode with an incorrect reference count. (i.e., > the inode refcount indcates that there should be 3 directory entries > pointing at it, but there are only two). > Yes, I've just looked at our fsck output, and I see this: ---- Inode 25723211 ref count is 1, should be 2. Inode 25723438 ref count is 1, should be 2. Unattached inode 25821969 Unattached inode 25821974 ---- Quite a few of those occured. Unfortunately I can't provide more info because the filesystem is now clean. Also, we reran the same commands on a loopback filesystem overnight and failed to replicate the problem. However, this was just one rsync running, whereas when we had the problem there were 4 simultaneously, so if the cause was a race condition or load problem, we may not have triggered it. _______________________________________________ Ext3-users@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
