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 mAQN5ARs018939 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:05:11 -0600 Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A13A61609241 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:05:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 8LPFSV41dEPUcwBE for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:05:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 09:59:31 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: truncated files Message-ID: <20081126225931.GK6291@disturbed> References: <200811252244.14718.Martin@Lichtvoll.de> <20081125222703.GE6291@disturbed> <200811260949.19642.Martin@lichtvoll.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200811260949.19642.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: Martin Steigerwald Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:49:18AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Dienstag 25 November 2008 schrieb Dave Chinner: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:44:14PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > Today on one try to hibernate via tuxonice it machine appeared dead. > > > I am > > > > ^^^^^^^^^ > > When (not if) suspend to disk/resume fails, you get to keep all the > > broken pieces of your filesystem. It works most of the time, but it has > > some fundamentally broken corner cases that you probably just > > hit.... > > Well I use TuxOnIce for a reason! I had uptimes of up to 70 days with it > already. And they are usually only interrupted by kernel updates or > manual shutdowns. I was never convinced by in-kernel solutions for > hibernate. Sure, though I'm not convinced that TuxOnIce is any better because it still uses the same fundamental design as the in-kernel ones. > > I've never had a system that suspends reliably (let alone resumes > > from the suspend) so it's no real surprise that I don't trust > > suspend to disk.... > > Well I take it as bad luck then, especially since there are no hints that > XFS had a problem. I am not sure whether the machine really was dead, but > I can't reproduce what exactly happened. So thats it. And therein lies the problem. I can't get suspend/resume to work reliably on anything I own, so I can't do anything about problems reported as a result of suspend/resume. Hell, I even considered running linux on my new laptop inside a virtual machine on windows just so I could have functioning suspend/resume.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs