From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>
To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Badness in key lookup (length)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:03:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200811252303.36912.Martin@lichtvoll.de> (raw)
Hi!
I also checked my / XFS filesystem after that failed attempt to hibernate
via TuxOnIce (see my mail "truncated files"). Well BTW this happened on a
ThinkPad T42.
While /home was fine, / had some rather minor - it seems - issues. Whether
they have been from today or from whenever - I do not know.
xfs_check had stuff like
agi unlinked bucket 0 is 8620800 in ag 0 (inode=8620800)
agi unlinked bucket 1 is 1181377 in ag 0 (inode=1181377)
agi unlinked bucket 2 is 8628866 in ag 0 (inode=8628866)
agi unlinked bucket 3 is 8620611 in ag 0 (inode=8620611)
agi unlinked bucket 4 is 1181380 in ag 0 (inode=1181380)
agi unlinked bucket 5 is 7711173 in ag 0 (inode=7711173)
agi unlinked bucket 6 is 7711174 in ag 0 (inode=7711174)
[...]
allocated inode 207025 has 0 link count
allocated inode 207029 has 0 link count
allocated inode 207118 has 0 link count
allocated inode 7711173 has 0 link count
allocated inode 7711174 has 0 link count
allocated inode 7711197 has 0 link count
Which are due to references to deleted files AFAIK.
But there also was:
allocated inode 17686884 has 0 link count
link count mismatch for inode 23955806 (name ?), nlink 28, counted 29
allocated inode 23971992 has 0 link count
[...]
allocated inode 36427654 has 0 link count
link count mismatch for inode 35553563 (name ?), nlink 0, counted 1
allocated inode 34329742 has 0 link count
And xfs_repair -n showed:
Phase 1 - find and verify superblock...
Phase 2 - using internal log
- zero log...
- scan filesystem freespace and inode maps...
- found root inode chunk
Phase 3 - for each AG...
- scan and clear agi unlinked lists...
error following ag 0 unlinked list
error following ag 2 unlinked list
error following ag 3 unlinked list
- process known inodes and perform inode discovery...
- agno = 0
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 21440, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 21440, len 8192 bytes)
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 29872, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 29872, len 8192 bytes)
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 84512, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 84512, len 8192 bytes)
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 91728, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 91728, len 8192 bytes)
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 97728, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 97728, len 8192 bytes)
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 100208, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 100208, len 8192 bytes)
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 100256, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 100256, len 8192 bytes)
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
[...]
- agno = 1
b47ffb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 15007344, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 15007344, len 8192 bytes)
b47ffb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 15009728, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 15009728, len 8192 bytes)
b47ffb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 15020000, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 15020000, len 8192 bytes)
b47ffb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 15044480, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 15044480, len 8192 bytes)
b47ffb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
[...]
- agno = 2
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 21986088, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 21986088, len 8192 bytes)
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 22240200, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 22240200, len 8192 bytes)
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 22374744, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 22374744, len 8192 bytes)
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 23118072, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 23118072, len 8192 bytes)
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 23133528, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 23133528, len 8192 bytes)
b796fb90: Badness in key lookup (length)
bp=(bno 26478456, len 16384 bytes) key=(bno 26478456, len 8192 bytes)
- agno = 3
- process newly discovered inodes...
Phase 4 - check for duplicate blocks...
- setting up duplicate extent list...
- check for inodes claiming duplicate blocks...
- agno = 0
- agno = 1
- agno = 2
- agno = 3
Phase 5 - rebuild AG headers and trees...
- reset superblock...
Phase 6 - check inode connectivity...
- resetting contents of realtime bitmap and summary inodes
- traversing filesystem ...
- traversal finished ...
- moving disconnected inodes to lost+found ...
disconnected inode 29078, moving to lost+found
disconnected inode 42896, moving to lost+found
disconnected inode 42930, moving to lost+found
disconnected inode 53518, moving to lost+found
[...]
disconnected inode 35447288, moving to lost+found
disconnected inode 35447289, moving to lost+found
disconnected dir inode 35553563, moving to lost+found
disconnected inode 35756686, moving to lost+found
disconnected inode 36427654, moving to lost+found
[...]
Phase 7 - verify and correct link counts...
resetting inode 35553563 nlinks from 0 to 2
done
Running xfs_repair -n after that yielded yet another issue - although
everything should be fixed:
Phase 1 - find and verify superblock...
Phase 2 - using internal log
- scan filesystem freespace and inode maps...
- found root inode chunk
Phase 3 - for each AG...
- scan (but don't clear) agi unlinked lists...
- process known inodes and perform inode discovery...
- agno = 0
- agno = 1
- agno = 2
- agno = 3
- process newly discovered inodes...
Phase 4 - check for duplicate blocks...
- setting up duplicate extent list...
- check for inodes claiming duplicate blocks...
- agno = 0
- agno = 1
- agno = 2
- agno = 3
No modify flag set, skipping phase 5
Phase 6 - check inode connectivity...
- traversing filesystem ...
- traversal finished ...
- moving disconnected inodes to lost+found ...
Phase 7 - verify link counts...
would have reset inode 94530 nlinks from 2 to 3
No modify flag set, skipping filesystem flush and exiting.
Another xfs_repair fixed this one for good.
Lost+found is impressive - but my bet is that its all those previously
deleted files that xfs_repair "fixed" - disk usage appears to be where I
expect it to be and I do not "miss" anything yet:
shambhala:~> du -sch /lost+found
151M /lost+found
151M insgesamt
My questions:
1) Whats those Badness in key lookup messages? Anything to worry about?
2) Why did xfs_repair -n after I ran xfs_repair yield yet another
error "would have reset inode 94530 nlinks from 2 to 3"? Why didn't it
appear in the first pass?
martin@shambhala:~/Zeit/xfs-probleme-2008-11-25> grep 94530
xfsrepair-sda1-repair.txt
martin@shambhala:~/Zeit/xfs-probleme-2008-11-25#1>
3) Any idea how these problems occured in the first time?
Well I did not grab a metadump as I was just concerned to get anything up
and running ASAP. So if you can't say much, thats fair enough. I have
complete outputs of xfs_check and the different xfs_repair runs at hand
tough and could upload them to my webserver somewhere.
shambhala:~> xfs_info /dev/sda1
meta-data=/dev/disk/by-uuid/7fcd9766-bf1a-426a-8a07-2c3e0c510898 isize=256
agcount=4, agsize=915703 blks
= sectsz=512 attr=2
data = bsize=4096 blocks=3662812, imaxpct=25
= sunit=0 swidth=0 blks
naming =version 2 bsize=4096
log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=32768, version=2
= sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1
realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
shambhala:~#1> cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.6.27.7-tp42-toi-3.0-rc7a (martin@shambhala) (gcc version
4.3.2 (Debian 4.3.2-1) ) #1 PREEMPT Mon Nov 24 11:30:39 CET 2008
xfsprogs 2.9.8-1 (debian package)
Ciao,
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next reply other threads:[~2008-11-25 22:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-25 22:03 Martin Steigerwald [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-11-25 22:02 Badness in key lookup (length) Martin Steigerwald
2008-11-26 0:11 ` Barry Naujok
2008-11-26 8:58 ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-11-26 0:50 ` Timothy Shimmin
2008-11-26 8:51 ` Martin Steigerwald
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200811252303.36912.Martin@lichtvoll.de \
--to=martin@lichtvoll.de \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.