Re: "This is a bug."

Tapani Tarvainen
2015-09-10T17:31:48Z

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:51:54AM -0400, Brian Foster (bfoster@redhat.com) wrote:

> First off, I see ~60MB of corruption output before I even get to the
> reported repair failure, so this appears to be an extremely severe
> corruption and I wouldn't be surprised if ultimately beyond repair

I assumed as much already.

> I suspect what's more interesting at this point is what happened to
> cause this level of corruption? What kind of event lead to this? Was it
> a pure filesystem crash or some kind of hardware/raid failure?

Hardware failure. Details are still a bit unclear but apparently raid
controller went haywire, offlining the array in the middle of
heavy filesystem use.

> Also, do you happen to know the geometry (xfs_info) of the original fs?

No (and xfs_info doesn't work on the copy made after crash as it
can't be mounted).

> Repair was showing agno's up in the 20k's and now that I've mounted the
> repaired image, xfs_info shows the following:
[...]
> So that's a 6TB fs with over 24000 allocation groups of size 256MB, as
> opposed to the mkfs default of 6 allocation groups of 1TB each. Is that
> intentional?

Not to my knowledge. Unless I'm mistaken, the filesystem was created
while the machine was running Debian Squeeze, using whatever defaults
were back then.