Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:42:36AM +0000, Holger Kiehl wrote: >> Note how the size of file results.24033.helena.dwd.de changes from >> 9230 before the test to 8208 bytes after the test. Also note the >> date both have the same timestamp "2008-06-17 04:35". I have made a >> copy of results.24033.helena.dwd.de before the test and compared it >> with that after the test. The file is just truncated by 1022 bytes >> and there is no garbage. > > So the corruption is always a truncation, correct? > > Did you notice the problem with ext4 w/o the patch queue? I have a > suspicion that the problem may have been introduced by the delayed > allocation code, but I don't have hard evidence. When you rerun your > benchmark (which seems to be the closest thing we have to a > reproduction case), it would be interesting to know if the problem > goes away with -o nodelalloc (again, it would localize where we need > to look). > > Thanks, regards, It might be worth runninga "simple" fsx under your kernel too; last time I tested fsx it was still happy and it exercises fs ops (including truncate) at random... -Eric -- 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
