Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:27:17 -0800
From:      "Chris H" <bsd-lists@BSDforge.com>
To:        <gljennjohn@gmail.com>
Cc:        "FreeBSD Current" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: kernel: failed: cg 5, cgp: 0xd11ecd0d != bp: 0x63d3ff1d
Message-ID:  <fe95899a0fb517f790785dfa32651ba3@udns.ultimatedns.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180220123953.5e987691@ernst.home>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:39:53 +0100 <gljennjohn@gmail=2Ecom> said

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:18:15 -0800
> "Chris H" <bsd-lists@BSDforge=2Ecom> wrote:
>=20
> > I'm seeing a number of messages like the following:
> > kernel: failed: cg 5, cgp: 0xd11ecd0d !=3D bp: 0x63d3ff1d
> >=20
> > and was wondering if it's anything to be concerned with, or whether
> > fsck(8) is fixing them=2E
> > This began to happen when the power went out on a new install:
> > FreeBSD dns0 12=2E0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12=2E0-CURRENT #0: Wed Dec 13 06:07:59 =
PST
> > 2017
> > root@dns0:/usr/obj/usr/src/amd64=2Eamd64/sys/DNS0 amd64
> > which hadn't yet been hooked up to the UPS=2E
> > I performed an fsck in single user mode upon power-up=2E Which ended with=
 the
> > mount points being masked CLEAN=2E I was asked if I wanted to use the JOU=
RNAL=2E
> > I answered Y=2E
> > FWIW the systems are UFS2 (ffs) have gpart labels, and were newfs'd thu=
sly:
> > newfs -U -j
> >=20
> > Thank you for all your time, and consideration=2E
> >=20
>=20
> fsck fixes these errors only when the user does NOT use the journal=2E
> You should re-do the fsck=2E
This doesn't seem quite right=2E That is; fsck(8) /should/ fix it when soft j=
ournaling
is enabled=2E Otherwise the -j option, to newfs(8) and journaling have no val=
ue=2E
OTOH you are indeed correct in that "falling through" will correct any erro=
rs=2E I
used that option after submitting this question=2E But there /does/ appear to=
 be a
regression=2E As this has never been the case in earlier versions of FreeBSD=2E=
 fe;
imposing the same conditions on an 11, or 9=2E3 system does NOT exhibit this =
problem=2E
I literally pulled the plug on 2 systems (1 @11, and 1 @9=2E3) and fsck(8) us=
ing
the journal happily fixed the errors, without any latter fallout as describ=
ed in
this message=2E

Thank you very much Gary, for taking the time to reply!

--Chris
>=20
> --=20
> Gary Jennejohn





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fe95899a0fb517f790785dfa32651ba3>