Re: XFS corruption with failover

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>]

Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> ----- "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@sandeen.net> wrote:
> 
>> Felix Blyakher wrote:
>>> On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:17 PM, John Quigley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Folks:
>>>>
>>>> We're deploying XFS in a configuration where the file system is  
>>>> being exported with NFS.  XFS is being mounted on Linux, with  
>>>> default options; an iSCSI volume is the formatted media.  We're  
>>>> working out a failover solution for this deployment utilizing Linux
>>  
>>>> HA.  Things appear to work correctly in the general case, but in  
>>>> continuous testing we're getting XFS superblock corruption on a
>> very  
>>>> reproducible basis.
>>>> The sequence of events in our test scenario:
>>>>
>>>> 1. NFS server #1 online
>>>> 2. Run IO to NFS server #1 from NFS client
>>>> 3. NFS server #1 offline, (via passing 'b' to /proc/sysrq-trigger)
>>>> 4. NFS server #2 online
>>>> 5. XFS mounted as part of failover mechanism, mount fails
>>>>
>>>> The mount fails with the following:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> kernel: XFS mounting filesystem sde
>>>> kernel: Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: sde (logdev:
>> internal)
>>>> kernel: XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid
>>>> kernel: XFS: log mount/recovery failed: error 5
>>> This is an IO error. Is the block device (/dev/sde) accessible
>>> from the server #2 OK? Can you dd from that device?
>> Are you sure?
>>
>>                 if (ohead->oh_clientid != XFS_TRANSACTION &&
>>                     ohead->oh_clientid != XFS_LOG) {
>>                         xlog_warn(
>>                 "XFS: xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid");
>>                         ASSERT(0);
>>                         return (XFS_ERROR(EIO));
>>                 }
>>
>> so it does say EIO but that seems to me to be the wrong error; loks
>> more
>> like a bad log to me.
>>
>> It does make me wonder if there's any sort of per-initiator caching
>> on
>> the iscsi target or something.  </handwave>
> Should barriers be enabled in XFS then?

Could try it but I bet the iscsi target doesn't claim to support them...

-eric

>> -Eric
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs