From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mAQ8xTQ5029791 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:59:29 -0600 Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B71BD160355D for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:59:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (mondschein.lichtvoll.de [194.150.191.11]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id JFaJ6cXZ5yXuOw9K for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:59:28 -0800 (PST) From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: Badness in key lookup (length) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:58:55 +0100 References: <200811252302.55944.Martin@Lichtvoll.de> (sfid-20081126_093725_926184_41341592) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811260958.56030.Martin@lichtvoll.de> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Am Mittwoch 26 November 2008 schrieb Barry Naujok: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:02:55 +1100, Martin Steigerwald > > wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I also checked my / XFS filesystem after that failed attempt to > > hibernate via TuxOnIce (see my mail "truncated files"). Well BTW this > > happened on a ThinkPad T42. > > > > While /home was fine, / had some rather minor - it seems - issues. > > Whether > > they have been from today or from whenever - I do not know. > > [snip] > > > My questions: > > > > 1) Whats those Badness in key lookup messages? Anything to worry > > about? > > Generally not - the xfsprogs cache indexes read blocks by offset and > I/O size. It will generate this warning if it encounters a read to the > same offset with different I/O size. Basically there to tell me that > there's a scenario where this may happen and should be fixed. Ah okay. *feeling relieved* > > 2) Why did xfs_repair -n after I ran xfs_repair yield yet another > > error "would have reset inode 94530 nlinks from 2 to 3"? Why didn't > > it appear in the first pass? > > There are remote cases where the first pass does not get the nlinks > quite right - I would have needed a metadump before the first run to > isolate where it miscounted the nlinks. All problems like this in > the past have been related to lost+found. Sorry for not taking it. I try to remember to take it when I stumble about another time. I have lost+found available still, but it won't be of much help I guess ;-). > > martin@shambhala:~/Zeit/xfs-probleme-2008-11-25> grep 94530 > > xfsrepair-sda1-repair.txt > > martin@shambhala:~/Zeit/xfs-probleme-2008-11-25#1> > > > > 3) Any idea how these problems occured in the first time? > > I think Dave pointed the cause out quite nicely :) Well okay. Found TuxOnIce to be quite reliable till now. Might just had back luck then. Good reassurance to take regular backups regardless of what I think how reliable things are ;-). > PS. Update the email address in your mailer to xfs@oss.sgi.com, > not xfs-linux@oss.sgi.com. Did so. Sorry for double posting without cancelling the old posts. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs