If the bug is in e2fsck, then if I mount the ext4 fs and umount it before I do e2fsck, should fsck return no error? The journal replay would be done by kernel during mount, am I correct? -----Original Message----- From: Eric Sandeen [mailto:sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:11 AM To: Ming Lei Cc: linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: ext4 corruption on 17TB file system during power cycle test On 6/13/12 8:49 AM, Ming Lei wrote: > I have raid0 on 12 Seagate new 3TB sas drives and kernel version is > 2.6.32SL6.1 version. The ext4 is mounted with barrier on, delalloc > on/off has almost the same result. > > I ran fs_mark -F -t 10 -D 1000 -N 1000 -n 1000000 -s 40 -S 2 into 4 > iterations(reported count of 40000000) and then power cycled the box. > After the box came up, I ran fsck -f to check inconsistency. On ext4 > FS 7.5TB and 16TB, I got no fsck error; but on 17TB, 21TB and 33TB, I > got big chunk of fsck errors. > > My question is: is this known issue and any fix? What version of e2fsprogs? That'd be the critical first question. There was at least one log recovery fix that went in post-1.42.3: commit 3b693d0b03569795d04920a04a0a21e5f64ffedc Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> Date: Mon May 21 21:30:45 2012 -0400 e2fsck: fix 64-bit journal support 64-bit journal support was broken; we weren't using the high bits from the journal descriptor blocks! We were also using "unsigned long" for the journal block numbers, which would be a problem on 32-bit systems. Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> 1.42.4 was just released yesterday, you might retest that version. -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
