From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yury Umanets Subject: Re: Gnu Parted error, Kernel Panic, Reiserfs Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:13:12 +0300 Message-ID: <1082121192.7920.19.camel@firefly> References: <1082120726.7920.17.camel@firefly> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <1082120726.7920.17.camel@firefly> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Szakacsits Szabolcs Cc: Alan Chu , Vitaly Fertman , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, bug-parted@gnu.org On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 16:05, Yury Umanets wrote: > On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 14:30, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Yury Umanets wrote: > > > > > > I'm on-like, but seems missed mentioned emails somehow. > > > > You answered the same. I've never resized reiserfs so I don't know. I'm > > just seeing the issue popping up everywhere. > > What I can say, I have not seen any details, sorry. Only claims that > there are some problems and promises that details will be presented. > > But anyway, send me emails to the following addresses: > > umka@namesys.com > umka@clustrefs.com > torque@ukrpost.ent > > I hope at least one should be okay.. > > > > > > But I should say that I have no any details and moreover, nobody was so > > > kind to send me at least something but complains that it does not work, > > > > Is there a test suite for resizing? > > > > Just running it against recent/latest > > reiserfs could catch potential compatibility problems. > > reiserfsck is perfect tool for testing resizer ;) > > Yes, but I can't reproduce the problem. I tried to do it recently. > Problem may be the following: > > (1) inconsistent reiserfs partition _before_ resizing. This will lead > for errors for sure. It is due the fact, that progsreiserfs resize code > has no code for checking tree validness before resizing. > > But at least node levels should be checked, because they are used for > making decision what to do on particular level of tree. And if node > level invalid resizer will get out with complains that invalid node is > found and tree will be left in invalid state. > > So, as you can see, this is quite possible to be stumbled here. > > (2) it is quite possible that there is a bug in resizer code, which can > only be visible on _big_ partitions. And I have not such a big > partitions to check it. > > > > > > > What I need to know is the following: > > > > > > (1) was reiserfs consistent before resizing or not (what last reiserfsck > > > said before resizing). > > > > Running fsck before resizing is a very good practice. But most people > > don't do it so some consistent check should be done in the resizer. IMHO > > at least you must check you can account for all blocks in use. If not then > > you must decline to resize otherwise you will probably trash the fs. > Of course there are some checks. But they are not sufficient. They only > check if filesystem is consistent or not (flag in super block). > > > > > ntfsresize had this from day 0 and caught a lot of inconsistent > > filesystems (and bugs during development) and refused to resize. > > After people run chkdsk everything worked fine. > > > > Partition Magic didn't have this or it's optional (I don't have it but > > people said so) and I suspect that's one of the reasons it also trashes > > filesystems occasionally. > > > > > (2) what version of reiserfs was used. > > > (3) sequence of actions or/and detailed description of what was done. > > > (4) is it visible using both parted and qtparted? > > > > I've seen it reported with both tools. E.g. here are some qtparted ones. > > > > http://qtparted.sourceforge.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=62 > > > > Szaka > Okay, I see what we (me) have to do. First of all I will add some code, > which will check tree for consistency. This is very simple check, not so > sophisticated as reiserfsck does. I will only check node levels, node > pointer items and probably validness of indirect items. > > And if check will not pass user will be asked to run fsck first. > Actually this functionality already exists in parted. Only thing to be > done is tree check. > > Will do it in week and then will see what happen. Okay? > > Thanks. One more thing. Is it common case, that resizier errors happen on Gento? -- umka