Re: "This is a bug."

Brian Foster
2015-09-10T17:56:01Z

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:31:38PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> 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.
>

Strange... was the filesystem created small and then grown to a much
larger size via xfs_growfs? I just formatted a 1GB fs that started with
4 allocation groups and ends with 24576 (same as above) AGs when grown
to 6TB.

Brian

> --
> Tapani Tarvainen