From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923DEC35DF5 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 13:19:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFDB21744 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 13:19:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dupond.be header.i=@dupond.be header.b="ktjayhjY" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729317AbgBYNTJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2020 08:19:09 -0500 Received: from apollo.dupie.be ([51.15.19.225]:37696 "EHLO apollo.dupie.be" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728981AbgBYNTJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2020 08:19:09 -0500 Received: from [10.10.1.141] (systeembeheer.combell.com [217.21.177.69]) by apollo.dupie.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C97EE80A9BA; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:19:06 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dupond.be; s=dkim; t=1582636747; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=oiaT6grkcrVKG+eCFYwNFETk5vroLG4d3H4bch6WW5A=; b=ktjayhjYGT7XHWbW3efFTdcYhpQ3zvo0frsxnWmRIwqDJVTQSIhZajHpeq93sEiQ5sgGvj Rb2EW2IWtXonRMrAqKwiWfhd/YSC529zG3/4nRAM48GHNwSn8xQolP6tB0Q/+sKtFKrOP6 wpfgKQAiXaiWTilcb/HlwQqzBxjlmV5lbojcfJRI/L0MPYNY7Gu9kU30Sbv1ghJMZ9MJLm V8v6qDBUQPRQbdCUhbzxQFm0x+JHYdwATFBFJKg1h0G2noMJQkn3ab/luWkPFBzX2Ko3U6 /pEoV6jtbOMcZxQceOH/hn3URcV0B80JI1ApSbx7oqzKn8RTVcRa7ggrv/N+lg== Subject: Re: Filesystem corruption after unreachable storage From: Jean-Louis Dupond To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org References: <20200124203725.GH147870@mit.edu> <3a7bc899-31d9-51f2-1ea9-b3bef2a98913@dupond.be> <20200220155022.GA532518@mit.edu> <7376c09c-63e3-488f-fcf8-89c81832ef2d@dupond.be> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:19:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7376c09c-63e3-488f-fcf8-89c81832ef2d@dupond.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org FYI, Just did same test with e2fsprogs 1.45.5 (from buster backports) and kernel 5.4.13-1~bpo10+1. And having exactly the same issue. The VM needs a manual fsck after storage outage. Don't know if its useful to test with 5.5 or 5.6? But it seems like the issue still exists. Thanks Jean-Louis On 20/02/2020 17:14, Jean-Louis Dupond wrote: > > On 20/02/2020 16:50, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:08:44AM +0100, Jean-Louis Dupond wrote: >>> dumpe2fs -> see attachment >> Looking at the dumpe2fs output, it's interesting that it was "clean >> with errors", without any error information being logged in the >> superblock.  What version of the kernel are you using?  I'm guessing >> it's a fairly old one? > Debian 10 (Buster), with kernel 4.19.67-2+deb10u1 >>> Fsck: >>> # e2fsck -fy /dev/mapper/vg01-root >>> e2fsck 1.44.5 (15-Dec-2018) >> And that's a old version of e2fsck as well.  Is this some kind of >> stable/enterprise linux distro? > Debian 10 indeed. >>> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes >>> Inodes that were part of a corrupted orphan linked list found.  Fix? >>> yes >>> >>> Inode 165708 was part of the orphaned inode list.  FIXED. >> OK, this and the rest looks like it's relating to a file truncation or >> deletion at the time of the disconnection. >> >>   > > > On KVM for example there is a unlimited timeout (afaik) until >> the >>>>> storage is >>>>> back, and the VM just continues running after storage recovery. >>>> Well, you can adjust the SCSI timeout, if you want to give that a >>>> try.... >>> It has some other disadvantages? Or is it quite safe to increment >>> the SCSI >>> timeout? >> It should be pretty safe. >> >> Can you reliably reproduce the problem by disconnecting the machine >> from the SAN? > Yep, can be reproduced by killing the connection to the SAN while the > VM is running, and then after the scsi timeout passed, re-enabled the > SAN connection. > Then reset the machine, and then you need to run an fsck to have it > back online. >>                         - Ted