From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1UmkjA-0006QV-JR for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:04:41 +0000 Message-ID: <51B87315.7090808@intel.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:09:41 +0300 From: Adrian Hunter MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Prins Anton (ST-CO/ENG1.1)" Subject: Re: UBIFS failure & stable page writes References: <85D877DD6EE67B4A9FCA9B9C3A4865670C3E8CB9B7@SI-MBX14.de.bosch.com> <20130527121828.GA32625@quack.suse.cz> <85D877DD6EE67B4A9FCA9B9C3A4865670C3E8CBB8D@SI-MBX14.de.bosch.com> <1369709828.5446.89.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <85D877DD6EE67B4A9FCA9B9C3A4865670C3E8CBD81@SI-MBX14.de.bosch.com> <1369727042.5446.112.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <85D877DD6EE67B4A9FCA9B9C3A4865670C3E8CBE33@SI-MBX14.de.bosch.com> <1369732266.5446.117.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <85D877DD6EE67B4A9FCA9B9C3A4865670C3E91DC9C@SI-MBX14.de.bosch.com> <1369810158.5446.208.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <85D877DD6EE67B4A9FCA9B9C3A4865670C3E91E697@SI-MBX14.de.bosch.com> <1370239282.21714.21.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <85D877DD6EE67B4A9FCA9B9C3A4865670C3EA0F38E@SI-MBX14.de.bosch.com> <51B82A1D.30009@intel.com> <85D877DD6EE67B4A9FCA9B9C3A4865670C3F1A3508@SI-MBX14.de.bosch.com> <51B862D6.2080807@intel.com> <85D877DD6EE67B4A9FCA9B9C3A4865670C3F1A3590@SI-MBX14.de.bosch.com> In-Reply-To: <85D877DD6EE67B4A9FCA9B9C3A4865670C3F1A3590@SI-MBX14.de.bosch.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , "dedekind1@gmail.com" List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Can you tar and send fs/ubifs directory? On 12/06/13 14:57, Prins Anton (ST-CO/ENG1.1) wrote: > Ok clear! > > Regarding mount debug: I suppose I only will see this on the 'first' boot after the problem is in the persistence storage? > (Up to now I'm not able to signal the point-of-failure... I'm only looking to an (possibly) after recovery situation). > > Or makes this sense to do this mount debug on the existing failing device? > > FYI: > - with 100 devices power cycling every 5 minutes for a weekend we DON'T see a problem. > - with 100 devices powered on for a weekend and after that give a single power-cycle shows maybe 1 or 2 failing devices (but sometimes '0'). > > So a main problem in analyzing is the 'moment of failure' and 'reproduction (rate)'. > > Met vriendelijke groeten | Best Regards, > Anton Prins > > Met vriendelijke groeten | Best Regards, > Anton Prins > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Hunter [mailto:adrian.hunter@intel.com] > Sent: woensdag 12 juni 2013 14:00 > To: Prins Anton (ST-CO/ENG1.1) > Cc: dedekind1@gmail.com; linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: UBIFS failure & stable page writes > > On 12/06/13 14:13, Prins Anton (ST-CO/ENG1.1) wrote: >> Does it make sense to use chk_orphans? > That checks for missing orphans but the problem is the opposite: the > presence of orphans that should not be there. > >> I suppose I have to do: $ echo "1" > chk_orphans >> >> Or am I wrong? >> >> Met vriendelijke groeten | Best Regards, >> Anton Prins >>