From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Edward Shishkin Subject: Re: reiser4 corruption Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:08:16 +0400 Message-ID: <42B30380.90606@namesys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: mross@rs-net.org Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Vitaly Fertman mross@rs-net.org wrote: Hello > I recently experimented using reiser4 on a backup system that > processes millions of files (most hard links to a main pool of files) > every night. I installed it on a spare machine by patching a vanilla > 2.6.11.11 with the reiser4 patches. Everything keep working for a few > days, but I suddenly noticed this message displayed multiple times: > > reiser4[ktxnmgrd:md0:ru(1754)]: commit_current_atom > (fs/reiser4/txnmgr.c:1147)[nikita-3176]: > WARNING: Flushing like mad: 16384 > > as well as: > > reiser4[pdflush(28040)]: commit_current_atom > (fs/reiser4/txnmgr.c:1147)[nikita-3176]: > WARNING: Flushing like mad: 16384 This is harmless > > Would someone mind explaining to me what this means? Upon fscking, it > complained about one node containing an unrecognizable module, or > something similar. What patch set did you apply? If this is the last one (reiser4-for-2.6.11-5) there is some inconsistency due to format changes that will be fixed in the next release. Edward. > Unfortunately, I don't have the exact output. Also, the semantic > checks would have taken 2-3 full days to finish, so I didn't even let > fsck finish. I just moved back to reiserfs, which is a shame since > reiser4 was incredibly faster. (Simultaneous backups were going at a > rate of ~20MB/s compared to ~8MB/s on reiserfs) > > Thanks, > > -Ross > >