From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 19 09:01:24 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF7816A4CE for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:01:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from carver.gumbysoft.com (carver.gumbysoft.com [66.220.23.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F44643D72 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:01:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dwhite@gumbysoft.com) Received: by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8215D72DBF; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:01:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FDC672DB5; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:01:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:01:11 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White To: sebastian ssmoller In-Reply-To: <1074355516.7787.10.camel@tyrael.linnet> Message-ID: <20040119085655.Q21951@carver.gumbysoft.com> References: <1074282376.907.3.camel@tyrael.linnet> <20040116154309.W93165@carver.gumbysoft.com> <1074355516.7787.10.camel@tyrael.linnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: panic: handle_written_inodeblock: live inodedep X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:01:24 -0000 On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, sebastian ssmoller wrote: > > I believe the report was that it happened if you performed a large I/O > > operation just after booting with a dirty filesystem, so it was running > > concurrently with bgfsck. > > this could be a point - when i got that panic i had one before (hardware > compatibility problems with geforce2, via kt 133 and amd) and i booted > with a dirty fs (of course running bgfsck). > in this situation i started portupgrade (ok possible not a good idea :) > ... Looks like I have something to test. If you do this regularly and don't mind waiting, you can disable background fsck via a rc.conf option. > > It might be repeatable with a generic snapshot. > > i am not sure whether i want to "repeat" it with my system - i could > cause data loss, couldnt it ? Potentially, but my theory was to create a junk filessytem on a test machine, dump /usr/ports on it, take a snapshot, then do somethign else nasty to that FS, like copy another /usr/ports tree onto it. Its also possible that its some sort of conflict between the fack doing an update and the I/O touching the same file or something. More experimentation is needed! -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org