From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zheng Liu Subject: Re: Query FSCK Errors on ext4 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:39:06 +0800 Message-ID: <20131028063905.GA9017@gmail.com> References: <008701cecc19$14734370$3d59ca50$@ntlworld.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Stephen Elliott , David Jeffery , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List" , Bernd Schubert , Eric Whitney To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com ([209.85.160.54]:60445 "EHLO mail-pb0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751857Ab3J1Ggy (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:36:54 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ro8so2602654pbb.13 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:36:54 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: [Cc Eric Whitney to confirm this problem] Hi Andreas, If I remember correctly, this patch might can fix this problem [1]. 1. http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg39485.html Regards, - Zheng On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:13:26AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > The error reported here is a relatively new one. It only appeared in > e2fsck 1.42.8, and wasn=E2=80=99t in the code that I=E2=80=99m using = locally (1.42.7) > so I wasn=E2=80=99t sure what it actually meant without looking at it= =2E >=20 > It looks like some kind of overflow of the extent tree, which causes > e2fsck to chop off the last 5 disk blocks (40 sectors), though I=E2=80= =99m not > sure exactly why. From your comments, this can be reproduced with > your database usage? Does it use fallocate() or any other strange > IO operations that might be causing this? >=20 > Have you tried updating your kernel? If there is repeated corruption > appearing in the filesystem, then it is either a bug in the kernel or > in e2fsck. Not really sure which one to blame at this point. >=20 > Cheers, Andreas >=20 > On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Stephen Elliott w= rote: >=20 > > Any feedback on this guys??? Would really appreciate somebody takin= g a look over this. > > =20 > > From: Stephen Elliott [mailto:techweb@ntlworld.com]=20 > > Sent: 22 September 2013 20:13 > > To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; Andr= eas Dilger (adilger@dilger.ca); 'Bernd Schubert' > > Subject: Query FSCK Errors on ext4 > > =20 > > Hi all, > > =20 > > I have theorised that the problem comes from the MS access DB being= open (over Samba) on client workstations when the server is reloaded. > > =20 > > Since ensuring these are closed prior to reloading, I have not seen= further FSCK errors on reload. Is there an explanation for this? I can= see why this may corrupt DB but not the filesystem. > > =20 > > Just as a primer, I used a ReadyNAS NV+ for many years which was ru= nning ext3 and never had this issue. However, since using ext4 on a Rea= dyNAS Pro, I now see this issue. > > =20 > > Many Thanks > > Stephen Elliott > > =20 > > From: Stephen Elliott [mailto:techweb@ntlworld.com]=20 > > Sent: 23 July 2013 22:02 > > To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; Andr= eas Dilger (adilger@dilger.ca); 'Bernd Schubert' > > Subject: RE: FSCK Errors on ext4 > > =20 > > If it helps guys, the same file as before is causing the issue with= inode 4195610, a very large MS access DB. > > =20 > > From: Stephen Elliott [mailto:techweb@ntlworld.com]=20 > > Sent: 23 July 2013 21:52 > > To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; Andr= eas Dilger (adilger@dilger.ca); 'Bernd Schubert' > > Subject: FSCK Errors on ext4 > > =20 > > Hi Andreas / Bernd / all, > > =20 > > You may recall advising me on another batch of FSCK errors a few mo= nths back. > > =20 > > The same device on an ext4 file system has produced the following e= rrors after a clean reload. It seems to be fine now but wanted your inp= ut on this. No bad blocks are reported on the devices etc. > > =20 > > ***** File system check forced at Tue Jul 23 21:02:13 WEST 2013 ***= ** fsck 1.42.8 (20-Jun-2013) e2fsck 1.42.8 (20-Jun-2013) Pass 1: Checki= ng inodes, blocks, and sizes Inode 4195619, end of extent exceeds allow= ed value > > (logical block 64907, physical block 11435403, len = 16) Clear? yes > > =20 > > Inode 4195619, i_blocks is 1337216, should be 1337176. Fix? yes > > =20 > > Pass 2: Checking directory structure > > Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity > > Pass 4: Checking reference counts > > Pass 5: Checking group summary information Block bitmap differences= : -(11435403--11435407) Fix? yes > > =20 > > Free blocks count wrong for group #348 (2130, counted=3D2135). > > Fix? yes > > =20 > > Free blocks count wrong (417470107, counted=3D417470112). > > Fix? yes > > =20 > > =20 > > /dev/c/c: ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED ***** > > /dev/c/c: 625785/30212096 files (13.6% non-contiguous), 65923424/48= 3393536 blocks > > =20 > > Many Thanks > > Stephen Elliott >=20 >=20 > Cheers, Andreas >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4"= in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html