From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n57FFkGi012079 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:15:46 -0400 Received: from eastrmmtao106.cox.net (eastrmmtao106.cox.net [68.230.240.48]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n57FFU3U027929 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:15:30 -0400 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090607151531.UIJH23066.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:15:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4A2BD9CA.3030104@cox.net> Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:16:26 -0400 From: "Clyde E. Kunkel" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Random file system errors References: <20090429061910.348CD31402A@mail.idrift.no> <34798D56CB2CB9B45352017A@LEYLA> In-Reply-To: <34798D56CB2CB9B45352017A@LEYLA> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development On 06/07/2009 07:44 AM, Gaute Lund wrote: > Thanks again Clyde, Geoff and f-lvm@media.mit.edu and others who gave > advice. Turns out it was a RAM issue. > > Just to close off this threadm, even if it's old. This is "only" a > private/testing box, and I've been busy, so I've only been able to > test stuff every now and then. > > A few runs of memtest86 found no errors. I turned to the "md5sums of > parts of disks" approach. If I read large chunks (5 GB), from > different places on the disks, with 5+ iterations with each chunk, I > got errors occasionally (diverging md5sums). But this is 10 disks > across two controllers and all but two gave errors several times, > albeit seldomly. > > I started swapping hardware, and with different RAM I am OK. I guess > clean runs of memtest shouldn't be trusted 100%. I can even say, the > way these errors have crept up on me gradually over months(!), it > means the RAM stick(s) have failed gradually, without being touched or > anything. Scary! > > FWIW, there is a bad version of memtest out there. I don't recall the version number and don't recall the problem, but, for you, its moot.