From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m616hrvE025447 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:43:53 -0700 Received: from ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 91B3C2A1F29 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.57]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id u36qQ07IBIw59prz for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:44:37 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: Xfs Access to block zero exception and system crash Message-ID: <20080701064437.GR29319@disturbed> References: <20080625084931.GI16257@build-svl-1.agami.com> <340C71CD25A7EB49BFA81AE8C839266701323BE8@BBY1EXM10.pmc_nt.nt.pmc-sierra.bc.ca> <20080626070215.GI11558@disturbed> <4864BD5D.1050202@pmc-sierra.com> <4864C001.2010308@pmc-sierra.com> <20080628000516.GD29319@disturbed> <340C71CD25A7EB49BFA81AE8C8392667028A1CA7@BBY1EXM10.pmc_nt.nt.pmc-sierra.bc.ca> <20080629215647.GJ29319@disturbed> <20080630034112.055CF18904C4@bby1mta01.pmc-sierra.bc.ca> <4868B46C.9000200@pmc-sierra.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4868B46C.9000200@pmc-sierra.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Sagar Borikar Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 03:54:44PM +0530, Sagar Borikar wrote: > After running my test for 20 min, when I check the fragmentation status > of file system, I observe that it > is severely fragmented. Depends on your definition of fragmentation.... > [root@NAS001ee5ab9c85 ~]# xfs_db -c frag -r /dev/RAIDA/vol > actual 94343, ideal 107, fragmentation factor 99.89% And that one is a bad one ;) Still, there are a lot of extents - ~1000 to a file - which will be stressing the btree extent format code. > Do you think, this can cause the issue? Sure - just like any other workload that generates enough extents. Like I said originally, we've fixed so many problems in this code since 2.6.18 I'd suggest that your only sane hope for us to help you track done the problem is to upgrade to a current kernel and go from there.... Cheers,, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com