On Dec 29, 2011, at 4:02 PM, David Thiel wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:57:31AM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
>> So, there's an assumption with SUJ+fsck that SU is keeping the filesystem
>> consistent. Maybe that's a bad assumption, and I'm not trying to discredit
>> your report. But the inte
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 03:02:14PM -0800, David Thiel wrote:
> =
> Machine 1, with journal:
> =
>
> Script started on Thu Dec 29 11:26:29 2011
> fsck /
> ** /dev/ada0.eli
Correction - machine 1 had an unclean shutdown. Will get additional logs
soon.
__
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:57:31AM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> So, there's an assumption with SUJ+fsck that SU is keeping the filesystem
> consistent. Maybe that's a bad assumption, and I'm not trying to discredit
> your report. But the intention with SUJ is to eliminate the need for
> anything
Hello, Mdf.
You wrote 28 декабря 2011 г., 23:14:19:
> Not required by SU as they use an explicit BIO_FLUSH which should be
> handled by the driver.
No, they don't. It was discussed here about month ago.
--
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov
___
fre
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:14:19AM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> SU doesn't care about write ordering, as long as everything before a
> BIO_FLUSH is really flushed by the time the BIO_FLUSH is acknowledged.
No.
SU and SU+J only require that write completed notification is issued
when geom/drive
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Matthias Andree
> wrote:
>> Am 27.12.2011 22:53, schrieb David Thiel:
>>> I've had multiple machines now (9.0-RC3, amd64, i386 and earlier
>>> 9-CURRENT on ppc) running SU+J that have had unexplained panics
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Matthias Andree
wrote:
> Am 27.12.2011 22:53, schrieb David Thiel:
>> I've had multiple machines now (9.0-RC3, amd64, i386 and earlier
>> 9-CURRENT on ppc) running SU+J that have had unexplained panics and
>> crashes start happening relating to disk I/O. When I en
Am 27.12.2011 22:53, schrieb David Thiel:
> I've had multiple machines now (9.0-RC3, amd64, i386 and earlier
> 9-CURRENT on ppc) running SU+J that have had unexplained panics and
> crashes start happening relating to disk I/O. When I end up running a
> full fsck, it keeps turning out that the di
On Dec 28, 2011, at 12:34 AM, David Thiel wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:54:20PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
>> The first run of fsck, using the journal, gives results that I would
>> expect. The second run seems to imply that the fixes made on the
>> first run didn't actually get written to
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:54:20PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> The first run of fsck, using the journal, gives results that I would
> expect. The second run seems to imply that the fixes made on the
> first run didn't actually get written to disk. This is definitely an
> oddity. I see that you
On Dec 27, 2011, at 10:14 PM, David Thiel wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 02:48:22PM -0800, Xin Li wrote:
- use journalled fsck; - use normal fsck to check if the
journalled fsck did the right thing.
>
> Ok, here is the log of fsck with and without journal.
>
> http://redundancy.redu
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 02:48:22PM -0800, Xin Li wrote:
> >> - use journalled fsck; - use normal fsck to check if the
> >> journalled fsck did the right thing.
Ok, here is the log of fsck with and without journal.
http://redundancy.redundancy.org/fscklog3
That was done the very next boot, after
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/27/11 14:36, David Thiel wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 02:29:03PM -0800, Xin LI wrote:
>> I'm not sure if your experiments are right here, the second log
>> shows you're running it read-only, which is likely caused by
>> running it on live fil
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 02:29:03PM -0800, Xin LI wrote:
> I'm not sure if your experiments are right here, the second log shows
> you're running it read-only, which is likely caused by running it on
> live file system.
Yes, this most recent instance is me running it on a live FS, because
I'm us
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:53 PM, David Thiel
wrote:
> I've had multiple machines now (9.0-RC3, amd64, i386 and earlier
> 9-CURRENT on ppc) running SU+J that have had unexplained panics and
> crashes start happening relating to disk I/O. When I end up running a
> full fsck, it keeps turning out tha
I've had multiple machines now (9.0-RC3, amd64, i386 and earlier
9-CURRENT on ppc) running SU+J that have had unexplained panics and
crashes start happening relating to disk I/O. When I end up running a
full fsck, it keeps turning out that the disk is dirty and corrupted,
but no mechanism is in
16 matches
Mail list logo
