I did run a forced sync check like Tim had suggested and did not get any errors there. After that I thought that it might be wise to disconnect the other RAID1 arrays to prevent damage to them. And now it gets strange: When I rebooted, I did get no EXT3-fs error messages any more. Further investigation of the disconnected drives showed that one of the four WD disks that is part of one of the two other, unrelated md devices showed SMART errors. I replaced the disk and now the system is running without any EXT3-fs error since nearly 24 hours! Is it possible that a faulty disk that is not part of a specific md RAID1 device causes filesystem errors on a md RAID1 device on a different set of disks that are connected to the same SATA controller??? Or is this just a weird coincidence? Best regards, Reiner. > -----Original Message----- > From: tytso@xxxxxxx [mailto:tytso@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:31 PM > To: Buehl, Reiner > Cc: linux-ide@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: ext3 filesystem corruption on md RAID1 device > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:08:21AM +0000, Buehl, Reiner wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I keep getting ext3 filesystem corruptions on one of my md RAID1 > arrays. Shortly after booting, I get messages like the following one: > > > > EXT3-fs error (device md1): htree_dirblock_to_tree: bad entry in > > directory #17269110: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=0, > > inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0 > > This looks like a block got completely zero'ed out. One interesting > question is whether the corruption is happening on the read side (when > transfering data from the disk to memory) or on the write side (when > tranferring data from memory to disk). So something that's worth > doing is grab the output of e2fsck, and see if it see if is trying to > fix the directory inode reported by the EXT3-fs error syslog. > > Another thing that's worth doing is to try running e2fsck -fy /dev/md1 > a second time. If you see errors in that second fsck run, then it's > time to suspect that either (a) the storage stack isn't reliably > reading from disk, or (b) the storage stack isn't reliably writing to > the disk. Thers is the possibility of an e2fsck bug, but that seems > unlikely in this context. If you save the outputs from each e2fsck > run, I can look at them and tell you whether it's likely an e2fsck bug > or, what seems more likely a storage stack failure. > > Regards, > > - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
