>> I found this in one log: >> >> Nov 14 05:26:55 kernel: EXT3-fs error (device sda7): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #7225391: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=3952, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0 >> Nov 14 13:42:40 kernel: EXT3-fs error (device sda7): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #7225391: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=4024, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0 >> Nov 16 17:29:40 kernel: EXT3-fs error (device sda7): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #7225391: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=4084, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0 >> Nov 23 19:42:44 kernel: EXT3-fs error (device sda7): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #7225391: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=3952, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0 >> >> Happend 4 times, the same inode, different offsets. Another log showed the >> same pattern. >> >> They said they ran fsck everytime this happened. Many machines got this problem, >> but they remember most of the time fsck didn't report error.(*) >> >> I've checked the pathname, and they all points to log dirs. There're 2 kinds >> of log dirs with different loggers, but seems work similarly. >> >> Except one bug report, all others point to exactly the same log dir. >> >> There're two processes that will touch this dir. One is a monitor, it will >> delete old logs if they occupy too much space, but normally this shouldn't >> happen. >> >> Another is the logger. When it wants to log sth, it scans the directory, if >> there're more than 100 log files, it will delete the oldest one. After writting >> to the current log file, if the file is larger than 8M, this file will be >> renamed as a backup log. I haven't read the code yet. But sounds pretty >> simple, right? >> >> The length of the file name is 25. There were 35 logs dating from 2012/11/02 >> to 2012/11/23, and no pending deleted files. Thus the remaining ~2.8K of the >> dir block is never used, so I don't think something zeroed it because it >> has always been zero. > Only 35 files? So there should be no rename. And the only possible Yes, there can be. The curren log will be renamed when it reaches 8M, and then a new log is created as the current log. > action we do to this dir is "create a new log file", right? Then, I > really don't think ext3 will error in such a simple test case. :( > >> >> This log dir is new in this version, while the other one also exists in >> old verison, with less IO. > You mean the kernel version? Sorry, but what do you want to tell us here? > The versions of the apps. One of the differences between them is the log system, and the old apps won't trigger this ext3 error. -- 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
