From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Edward Shishkin Subject: Re: reiser4: BUG during a backup (sequentially reading the whole fs) on 4.9 Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2017 10:39:06 +0300 Message-ID: <5932679A.4020801@gmail.com> References: <1488211296.5395.2.camel@intelfx.name> <1488212421.5395.3.camel@intelfx.name> <4a88640c-8d98-1cc0-5713-3abd76abf208@gmail.com> <1496328566.8314.2.camel@intelfx.name> <290631df-dc46-e8ef-041f-c353b7eecf88@gmail.com> <1496339175.12062.1.camel@intelfx.name> <59307242.5010705@gmail.com> <1496357947.4940.2.camel@intelfx.name> <5931CC9D.6080801@gmail.com> <1496445690.28911.1.camel@intelfx.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H3a2Dg/Y+sCuRh1zaxlF8VaR3Qi/VKejgbwZ0dUB9z0=; b=HT0u9nsuB1nPR3fxO5R+VSHZyLpXOMbJyqImx24Z5VgPgiFrapDEpSmgGsSgbZwH9N hDKK2X996B1aLtC5kpNreb01sBAtWOOjBLOFg3FuiF3I9ptTEvEQngNZalluUc20t8Po UwWetLzOxm3YGnmtdkQ8dUMfMbOQS2h1r4ygzm/S2ZmfjwyRSMQ7LyK1gFQG7gZnvvAe uG/xGKDdpX859SD5d/Eh2uq6ORWsBO5+EvR//zIuziuouFJYB2Ko3WJtSz59T5yJ2vJE 4M5uPevPWddbypDeHy/ytjIb1AiMarfiRP6zWSRbNWUsLe+Tlkrx2rP2B5MB1Is6nulU YH8Q== In-Reply-To: <1496445690.28911.1.camel@intelfx.name> Sender: reiserfs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: intelfx@intelfx.name, Reiserfs development mailing list Is it reproducible with cp -a ? On 06/03/2017 02:21 AM, Ivan Shapovalov wrote: > Uh, I don't know exactly which partition is it. Strangely, I could not > reproduce this with a mock-up load (find -exec cat {} \; >/dev/null), > but odds are that it usually happens while reading a half-filled 500GB > partition. > > Anyhow, I can put it on my public-facing NAS and give you either a > download link (my uplink is 50 Mbps wide) or ssh access, if you would > be kind enough to have a look at it :) > > BTW, if I enable checkpoints in borg (so it saves internal state > periodically) and restart the backup from a checkpoint after the crash, > it always finishes successfully. Does that confirm or refute your > hypothesis? > > Thanks,