From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:57:35 -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 m675vWvw007372 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 22:57:32 -0700 Received: from bby1mta01.pmc-sierra.bc.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 875942BFF3F for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 22:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bby1mta01.pmc-sierra.bc.ca (bby1mta01.pmc-sierra.com [216.241.235.116]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 6HKEE6GcrHr6KaLH for ; Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4871B085.10902@pmc-sierra.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:28:29 +0530 From: Sagar Borikar MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Xfs Access to block zero exception and system crash References: <486B01A6.4030104@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> <4871A77D.7050803@sandeen. net> In-Reply-To: <4871A77D.7050803@sandeen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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... > Initially I thought to do that since I didn't want to have a strict allocation limit but allowing allocations to grow as needed until the backing filesystem runs out of free space due to type of the test case I had. But then I dropped the plan and created a non-sparse loopback device. There was no specific reason to create loopback but as it was simplest option to do it. > 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. > That will be great. Thanks indeed. Sagar > -Eric >