Re: permanent XFS volume corruption

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>>> On 11.05.17 at 17:16, <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/11/17 10:12 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 11.05.17 at 16:58, <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Oh, hm.  What caused that crash, do you have logs prior to it?
>> 
>> Nothing at all in the logs; the crashes were hypervisor ones in
>> both instances.
> 
> ok, so this guest was fine, other than getting taken out by the
> hypervisor?

Well, it was the host (Xen Dom0) actually. But yes, the Dom0 part
of the system was entirely fine.

>>>> I didn't try xfs_repair-ing
>>>> the volume in this second instance, as the result from doing so in
>>>> the first instance was only permanent re-occurrence (and
>>>> apparently spreading) of the problem. It may be interesting that
>>>> xfs_check finds only this one corrupted inode, while the kernel
>>>> also finds at least one more:
>>>
>>> xfs_repair -n would be safe, what does it say?  (mount/unmount
>>> first, to clear the log)
>> 
>> So are you saying "xfs_repair -n" is not the same as "xfs_check"?
> 
> Different body of code, even though they perform similar functions.

Output for both volumes attached.

>>>> In any event I think there are two problems: The corruption itself
>>>> (possibly an issue with recent enough upstream kernels only) and
>>>> the fact that running xfs_repair doesn't help in these cases. I'm
>>>> attaching xfs_check and xfs_metadump warning output for both
>>>> affected volumes in this second instance. The full files
>>>> xfs_metadump -agow produced can be provided upon request
>>>> (500Mb and 80Mb uncompressed respectively).
>>>
>>> can you provide one or both compressed xfs_metadumps offline?
>>> (No need to post URL to the list)
>> 
>> Well, I have no idea where to upload it to, all the sites I know of
>> only accept text kind of data, and I don't think that would be
>> suitable here. (I'm sorry for my ignorance, but that's not something
>> I ever had a need to do.)
> 
> How small does the 80mb one compress with xz?  You may be able to just
> mail it my way.  If not I'll find another option.

4.6 Mb. Is that small enough for your mailbox?

Jan

Attachment: sda1.dry
Description: Binary data

Attachment: sdb8.dry
Description: Binary data


[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux