On 12/13/2011 06:33 PM, Ray Morris wrote: >>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:35:46 -0500 >>> "Peter M. Petrakis" <peter.petrakis@canonical.com> wrote > >> What distro and kernel on you on? > > > 2.6.32-71.29.1.el6.x86_64 (CentOS 6) > > >>> Copying the entire LVs sequentially saw no problems. Later when I >>> tried to rsync to the LVs the problem showed itself. >> >> That's remarkable as it removes the fs from the equation. What >> fs are you using? > > ext3 > >> Not a bad idea. Returning to the backtrace: > ... >> raid5_quiesce should have been straight forward >> >> http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v3.1.5/drivers/md/raid5.c#L5422 > > Interesting. Not that I speak kernel, but I may have to learn. > Please note the other partial stack trace included refers to a > different function. > > > Dec 13 09:15:52 clonebox3 kernel: Call Trace: > Dec 13 09:15:52 clonebox3 kernel: [<ffffffffa01feca5>] raid5_quiesce+0x125/0x1a0 [raid456] > Dec 13 09:15:52 clonebox3 kernel: [<ffffffff8105c580>] ? default_wake_function+0x0/0x20 > Dec 13 09:15:52 clonebox3 kernel: [<ffffffff810563f3>] ? __wake_up+0x53/0x70 > -- > Dec 13 09:15:52 clonebox3 kernel: Call Trace: > Dec 13 09:15:52 clonebox3 kernel: [<ffffffff814c9a53>] io_schedule+0x73/0xc0 > Dec 13 09:15:52 clonebox3 kernel: [<ffffffffa0009a15>] sync_io+0xe5/0x180 [dm_mod] > Dec 13 09:15:52 clonebox3 kernel: [<ffffffff81241982>] ? generic_make_request+0x1b2/0x4f0 > -- > Dec 13 09:15:52 clonebox3 kernel: Call Trace: > Dec 13 09:15:52 clonebox3 kernel: [<ffffffffa00046ec>] ? dm_table_unplug_all+0x5c/0xd0 [dm_mod] > Dec 13 09:15:52 clonebox3 kernel: [<ffffffff8109bba9>] ? ktime_get_ts+0xa9/0xe0 > Dec 13 09:15:52 clonebox3 kernel: [<ffffffff8119e960>] ? sync_buffer+0x0/0x50 > > an earlier occurrence: > > Dec 5 23:31:34 clonebox3 kernel: Call Trace: > Dec 5 23:31:34 clonebox3 kernel: [<ffffffff8134ac7d>] ? scsi_setup_blk_pc_cmnd+0x13d/0x170 > Dec 5 23:31:34 clonebox3 kernel: [<ffffffffa01e7ca5>] raid5_quiesce+0x125/0x1a0 [raid456] > Dec 5 23:31:34 clonebox3 kernel: [<ffffffff8105c580>] ? default_wake_function+0x0/0x20 [snip] Still in the RAID code, just a tiny bit further. I assume when you examine lsscsi -l that all the disks are 'running' at this point? > > >> At this point I think you might have more of an MD issue than >> anything else. If you could take MD out of the picture by using a >> single disk or use a HW RAID, that would be a really useful data >> point. > > I _THINK_ it was all hardware RAID when this happened before, but I > can't be sure. Then you're not at your wits end, and you posses the HW to isolate this issue. Please retry your experiment and keep us posted. Peter _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
