On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:02 PM, Сергей Александров wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > Александров Сергей Васильевич > > > 2012/10/30 Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 17:30 +0300, Сергей Александров wrote: >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> Александров Сергей Васильевич >>> >>> >>> 2012/10/30 Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 16:20 +0300, Сергей Александров wrote: >>>>> Good time of the day! >>>>> >>>>> I'v got a nilfs2 partition on a 1TB md RAID1 partition composed of two >>>>> HDD's. Kernel 3.5.3, userspace utils v2.1.1. Gentoo linux >>>>> distribution. >>>>> Just updated utils to 2.1.4 but no failure since. >>>>> >>>>> After power shutdown, mount takes about several hours. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What about RAID1 consistency? Could you describe more about your RAID >>>> configuration? >>> >>> # cat /proc/mdstat >>> Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] >>> md0 : active raid1 sdb1[0] sdc1[2] >>> 976760400 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] >>> >>> So, raid is consistent. Reading speed from md device is about 60MB/s >>> according to iostat. >>> >>>>> For the first time I thought that it won't mount at all and tried to >>>>> use fsck tool, found somewhere in the internet(don't really remember). >>>>> It reported that superblock is ok. >>>> >>>> So, I am implementing the fsck tool for NILFS2. I guess that you take >>>> sources from NILFS2 e-mail list. >>>> >>>>> Than I commented the check in the source file and the default number >>>>> of blocks to check appeared to be too small. It failed to find the >>>>> next superblock. I've increased the number, but increasing it to *100 >>>>> didn't help. >>>> >>>> Sorry, I can't understand about what sources you are talking. Could you >>>> describe more details about what and where you commented? >>>> >>> I've forced test_latest_log to return negative result. And changed >>> MAX_SCAN_SEGMENTS to 100000 >>> That was not enough. It finished without finding the SB. >>> >>> >>> The load from fsck was the same as from mount. >>> About 60MB/s read from md device and about 30% load on one core. >>> >>>>> So, probably the reserved SB is too far from away and it takes too >>>>> long to find it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you try to find the second superblock then it is placed in the begin >>>> of last 4 KB of the volume. Your device size is 1000202649600 bytes. >>>> >>>>> Does anybody knows, how can it be speed up? I know, UPS is a solution, >>>>> but I consider it be a bug. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Could you share more details about situation during mount operations? I >>>> mean: (1) NILFS2-related messages in the system log; (2) "ps ax" output; >>>> (3) maybe "top" output can be useful also; (4) "mount" output before >>>> trying to mount NILFS2 volume. >>> last situation: >>> >>> messages log: >>> Oct 30 12:18:52 router kernel: [ 159.674579] NILFS warning: mounting >>> unchecked fs >>> ..... >>> ..... >>> Oct 30 13:03:06 router kernel: [ 2810.304245] NILFS: recovery complete. >>> Oct 30 13:03:06 router kernel: [ 2810.325240] segctord starting. >>> Construction interval = 5 seconds, CP frequency < 30 seconds >>> Oct 30 13:03:07 router nilfs_cleanerd[15453]: start >>> Oct 30 13:03:07 router nilfs_cleanerd[15453]: pause (clean check) >>> >> >> Could you share content of your /etc/nilfs_cleanerd.conf file? > > > protection_period 3600 > min_clean_segments 10% > max_clean_segments 20% > clean_check_interval 10 > selection_policy timestamp > nsegments_per_clean 4 > mc_nsegments_per_clean 8 > cleaning_interval 5 > mc_cleaning_interval 2 > retry_interval 30 > use_mmap > log_priority info > >> Could you try to reproduce the issue with log_priority enhanced to debug >> level (I mean option in nilfs_cleanerd.conf) and share messages log >> again? > > I can, but a bit later, if you don''t mind(in 24 hours). > Please, try to mount with using "strace". The output of "strace" can be useful. Please, share it after trying. Thanks, Vyacheslav Dubeyko. >>> It took about 45 minutes. >>> Previous time it took more than 4 hours. >> >> You mean that your console returns input after 45 minutes when you try >> to execute mount. Am I correct? > > Yes, you are correct. > > -------------------------------------------------- > Aleksandrov Sergey Vasil'evich > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
