From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:19:00 -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 m675IsOt004979 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 22:18:54 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A0D182BFC61 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 22:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id CTKRnfJhEA9qXN6N for ; Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4871A77D.7050803@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:19:57 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Xfs Access to block zero exception and system crash References: <486B01A6.4030104@pmc-sierra.com> <486B13AD.2010500@pmc-sierra.com> <1214979191.6025.22.camel@verge.scott.net.au> <20080702065652.GS14251@build-svl-1.agami.com> <486B6062.6040201@pmc-sierra.com> <486C4F89.9030009@sandeen.net> <486C6053.7010503@pmc-sierra.com> <486CE9EA.90502@sandeen.net> <486DF8F0.5010700@pmc-sierra.com> <20080704122726.GG29319@disturbed> <340C71CD25A7EB49BFA81AE8C839266702997641@BBY1EXM10.pmc_nt.nt.pmc-sierra.bc.ca> <486E5F4D.1010009@sandeen.net> <340C71CD25A7EB49BFA81AE8C839266702997658@BBY1EXM10.pmc_nt.nt.pmc-sierra.bc.ca> <486FA095.1050106@sandeen.net> <340C71CD25A7EB49BFA81AE8C839266702A084A6@BBY1EXM10.pmc_nt.nt.pmc-sierra.bc.ca> <487117FC.9090109@sandeen.net> <4871872B.9060107@pmc-sierra.com> <487187D2.8080105@sandeen.net> <4871885B.6090208@pmc-sierra.com> <48718977.1090005@sandeen.net> <48718AB6.80709@pmc-sierra.com> <48718BF0.2040700@sandeen.net> <48719093.3060907@pmc-sierra.com> <487191C2.6090803@sandeen .net> <4871947D.2090701@pmc-sierr a.com> In-Reply-To: <4871947D.2090701@pmc-sierra.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Sagar Borikar Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Sagar Borikar wrote: > Could you kindly try with my test? I presume you should see failure > soon. I tried this on > 2 different x86 systems 2 times ( after rebooting the system ) and I saw > it every time. Sure. Is there a reason you're doing this on a loopback file? That probably stresses the vm a bit more, and might get even trickier if the loopback file is sparse... But anyway, on an x86_64 machine with 2G of memory and a non-sparse 10G loopback file on 2.6.24.7-92.fc8, your test runs w/o problems for me, though the system does get sluggish. I let it run a bit then ran repair and it found no problems, I'll run it overnight to see if anything else turns up. -Eric