bad_stat_data: block 1557090, [921 189485 0x0 SD (0)], SD has bad nlink number

bad_stat_data: block 1557090, [921 189485 0x0 SD (0)], SD has bad nlink number

[Bernhard Sadlowski]

I've upgraded from 2.4.18 (with several reiserpatches) to 2.4.19 (plain)
and also upgraded the reiserprogs to version 3.6.2. 

I see errors which won't be corrected with "--fix-fixable", although
reiserfsck says they will. Are they serious? Bug in reiserfsck?

Thanks,
Bernhard

This is the output of "time reiserfsck --check /dev/md0"

###########
reiserfsck --check started at Sun Aug  4 10:58:42 2002
###########
Replaying journal..
No transactions found
Checking S+tree../  1 (of   3)/ 12 (of 166)/ 18 (of  92)bad_stat_data:
block 1557090, [921 189485 0x0 SD (0)], SD has bad nlink number
/  3 (of   3)/ 67 (of 100)/  9 (of 170)bad_stat_data: block 1582967,
[198978 198986 0x0 SD (0)], directory SD has bad nlink number
ok
Comparing bitmaps..ok
Checking Semantic tree...
ok
There were found 2 corruptions which can be fixed with --fix-fixable
###########
reiserfsck finished at Sun Aug  4 11:02:32 2002
###########

real    3m55.568s
user    0m35.920s
sys     0m10.210s


This is the output of "time reiserfsck --fix-fixable /dev/md0"

###########
reiserfsck --fix-fixable started at Sun Aug  4 11:05:01 2002
###########
Replaying journal..
No transactions found
Checking S+tree..ok
Comparing bitmaps..ok
Checking Semantic tree...
ok
No corruptions found
There are on the filesystem:
        Leaves 65144
        Internal nodes 431
        Directories 13035
        Other files 207804
        Data block pointers 23448221 (18310 of them are zero)
        Safe links 0
###########
reiserfsck finished at Sun Aug  4 11:11:56 2002
###########

real    7m3.679s
user    0m39.330s
sys     0m17.780s

This is the output of a second "time reiserfsck --check /dev/md0"

###########
reiserfsck --check started at Sun Aug  4 11:12:31 2002
###########
Replaying journal..
No transactions found
Checking S+tree../  1 (of   3)/ 12 (of 166)/ 18 (of  92)bad_stat_data:
block 1557090, [921 189485 0x0 SD (0)], SD has bad nlink number
/  3 (of   3)/ 67 (of 100)/  9 (of 170)bad_stat_data: block 1582967,
[198978 198986 0x0 SD (0)], directory SD has bad nlink number
ok
Comparing bitmaps..ok
Checking Semantic tree...
ok
There were found 2 corruptions which can be fixed with --fix-fixable
###########
reiserfsck finished at Sun Aug  4 11:18:27 2002
###########

real    5m58.794s
user    0m40.080s
sys     0m13.940s

# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid5] [multipath]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md0 : active raid1 hdg1[0] hde1[1]
      97685632 blocks [2/2] [UU]

unused devices: <none>

# cat /proc/fs/reiserfs/version
ReiserFS version 3.6.25 [as module]

# uname -r
2.4.19

Re: bad_stat_data: block 1557090, [921 189485 0x0 SD (0)], SD has bad nlink number

[Oleg Drokin]

Hello!

On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 11:27:16AM +0200, Bernhard Sadlowski wrote:

> I see errors which won't be corrected with "--fix-fixable", although
> reiserfsck says they will. Are they serious? Bug in reiserfsck?

The prediction of something that might be fixed with --fix-fixable is somewhat
optimistic and not always comes true.

> Checking S+tree../  1 (of   3)/ 12 (of 166)/ 18 (of  92)bad_stat_data:
> block 1557090, [921 189485 0x0 SD (0)], SD has bad nlink number
> /  3 (of   3)/ 67 (of 100)/  9 (of 170)bad_stat_data: block 1582967,
> [198978 198986 0x0 SD (0)], directory SD has bad nlink number

these 2 corruptions are very minor. These are just files that were deleted, but
some of their info left on disk, so nothing really serious.

Actually --fix-fixable output looks bogus, we'll look into it deeper,
thank you for the report.

Bye,
    Oleg