From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n6ALEXZu123105 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:14:34 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 440B8A32B29 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id tJUs2kjY6ljXHPCy for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A57AF5D.6080603@sandeen.net> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:15:09 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfs_repair stops on "traversing filesystem..." References: <4A55FAF7.5040908@gmail.com> <4A56D176.9010702@sandeen.net> <4A56ED5F.10400@gmail.com> <4A57A1C4.40004@sandeen.net> <4A57AC69.7070502@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4A57AC69.7070502@gmail.com> 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: Tomek Kruszona Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Tomek Kruszona wrote: > Eric Sandeen wrote: >> This looks like some of the caching that xfs_repair does is mis-sized, >> and it gets stuck when it's unable to find a slot for a new node to >> cache. IMHO that's still a bug that I'd like to work out. If it gets >> stuck this way, it'd probably be better to exit, and suggest a larger >> hash size. >> >> But anyway, I forced a bigger hash size: >> >> xfs_repair -P -o bhash=1024 >> >> and it did complete. 1024 is probably over the top, but it worked for >> me on a 4G machine w/ some swap. > :D > > Is it safe to use xfs_repair without this options after the FS was > repaired? Or maybe I should use them every time I have similar problem? These are all good questions ;) TBH I'm kind of digging through repair in earnest for the first time. I'm not certain why it got into this state, whether there is some underlying bug, perhaps leaving things wrongly referenced, or just a plain ol' mis-sizing of the caches. I have a patch now that ends like this; if all else fails at least it'd not spin forever, and give a hint of what to try. -Eric ... Phase 6 - check inode connectivity... - resetting contents of realtime bitmap and summary inodes - traversing filesystem ... unknown magic number 0 for block 8388608 in directory inode 40541 rebuilding directory inode 40541 unknown magic number 0 for block 8388608 in directory inode 48934 rebuilding directory inode 48934 unknown magic number 0 for block 8388608 in directory inode 56139 rebuilding directory inode 56139 unknown magic number 0 for block 8388608 in directory inode 63785 rebuilding directory inode 63785 Unable to free any items in cache for new node; exiting. Try increasing the bhash and/or ihash size beyond 64 cache: 0x190ed4d0 Max supported entries = 512 Max utilized entries = 512 Active entries = 512 Hash table size = 64 Hits = 130779 Misses = 271155 Hit ratio = 32.54 MRU 0 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 1 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 2 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 3 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 4 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 5 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 6 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 7 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 8 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 9 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 10 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 11 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 12 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 13 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 14 entries = 0 ( 0%) MRU 15 entries = 0 ( 0%) Hash buckets with 2 entries 2 ( 0%) Hash buckets with 3 entries 2 ( 1%) Hash buckets with 4 entries 4 ( 3%) Hash buckets with 5 entries 1 ( 0%) Hash buckets with 6 entries 8 ( 9%) Hash buckets with 7 entries 9 ( 12%) Hash buckets with 8 entries 9 ( 14%) Hash buckets with 9 entries 10 ( 17%) Hash buckets with 10 entries 9 ( 17%) Hash buckets with 11 entries 6 ( 12%) Hash buckets with 12 entries 1 ( 2%) Hash buckets with 13 entries 2 ( 5%) Hash buckets with 14 entries 1 ( 2%) _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs