[Apologies for the repost, attachment was too big] Sorry for the delay. I've been trying to put together a simpler reproducer since no one wants to debug a filesystem based on rbd symptoms :). It doesn't appear to be related to using extsize on a non-empty file. The linked archive below has a reproducer (xfs_extsize_reproducer.cc), an input op sequence (trimmed-ops.in), the resulting file and what it should be (test, test.correct), and a summary (notes.txt). http://filedump.ceph.com/samuelj/reproducer.tgz I think this probably is fixed in the commit mentioned above (xfs: Use preallocation for inodes with extsz hints). Thanks! -Sam On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:26:23AM -0700, Gregory Farnum wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:45:59PM -0700, Sage Weil wrote: >> >> This Firefly point release fixes an potential data corruption problem >> >> when ceph-osd daemons run on top of XFS and service Firefly librbd >> >> clients. A recently added allocation hint that RBD utilizes triggers >> >> an XFS bug on some kernels (Linux 3.2, and likely others) that leads >> >> to data corruption and deep-scrub errors (and inconsistent PGs). This >> >> release avoids the situation by disabling the allocation hint until we >> >> can validate which kernels are affected and/or are known to be safe to >> >> use the hint on. >> > >> > I've not really seen an report for that on the XFS list, could it be >> > that you're running into the issue fixed by >> > >> > "xfs: Use preallocation for inodes with extsz hints" >> > >> > (commit aff3a9edb7080f69f07fe76a8bd089b3dfa4cb5d)? >> >> Sam reported the issue we're seeing in "consequences of >> XFS_IOC_FSSETXATTR on non-empty file?", > > Assuming you've created an extent size hint with a file with delayed > allocation on it and no blocks, then that's more than likely the > same issue. The above commit uses preallocation to allocate > unwritten extents rather than delayed allocation for files with > extent size hints because delayed allocation doesn't write zeros > over ranges in the allocated extents that don't have dirty data over > them. > > Moral of the story: any time you get what appears to be data > corruption in the underlying data store, you should report it to the > relevant filesystem list rather than try to work around it.... > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
