Andreas Dilger wrote: > On May 21, 2008 00:02 +0200, Bas van Schaik wrote: > >> Theodore Tso wrote: >> >>> 15629775440 / 8 = 0x74736E4A (or in ascii 'Inst') >>> 13075964688 / 8 = 0x616C6C62 (or in ascii 'blla') >>> 15354014352 / 8 = 0x72657552 (or in ascii 'Ruer') >>> >>> Converting these numbers to hex: >>> >>> 1953721929 = 0x74736E49 (or in ascii 'Jnst') >>> 1634495585 = 0x616C6C61 (or in ascii 'alla' >>> 543517044 = 0x20656974 (or in ascii 'tie ') >>> 1919251793 = 0x72657551 (or in ascii 'Quer') >>> >>> Given that it's all ascii, it looks like the indirect block somehow >>> was overwritten, or was substituted by text. >>> >> Ah, such a lead was exactly what I was looking for, now I at least know >> where those bogus numbers were coming from. Maybe a very dump question: >> you seem to have reverse the ascii "translation", why? And shouldn't >> "Jnst" be "Inst"? Note also that the "translations" seem to resemble >> each other a little bit: "Jnst" = "Jnst", "alla" looks like "blla" and >> "Ruer" looks like "Quer". Coincidence? >> > > Or it is possible you are getting single-bit errors somewhere along > your IO path, and another single-bit error has resulted in this data > being written to the wrong block to begin with... > I don't think I understand your statement fully... Do you mean that some bitflip caused the filesystem to initiate a write to the wrong blocks? -- Bas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
