Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:55:59 -0400 From: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> To: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic: handle_written_inodeblock: bad size Message-ID: <4C44758F.7080209@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <20100719113147.GA4786@icarus.home.lan> References: <4C43F35D.5020007@aldan.algebra.com> <20100719113147.GA4786@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
19.07.2010 07:31, Jeremy Chadwick ΞΑΠΙΣΑΧ(ΜΑ):
> If you boot the machine in single-user, and run fsck manually, are there
> any errors?
>
Thanks, Jeremy... I wish, there was a way to learn, /which/ file-system
is giving trouble... However, after sending the question out last night,
I tried to pkg_delete a package on the machine, and was very lucky to
see a file-system error (inode something or other) before the panic
struck. That, at least, told me, which file-system was in trouble
(/var). I dump-ed it out, re-created, and then restored it... Although
dumping went smooth, there were two errors at which restore offered to
abort. I told it not to and got (most of the) file-system restored. (The
dump is available to anyone wishing to investigate -- contact me
privately. I'm not posting it publicly because of the passwd-file backup
under /var).
So far seems quiet -- no panics for two more hours before I went to bed.
> Only thing I can think of off the top of my head: there's a known
> situation (also applies to RELENG_7) where a background fsck doesn't
> correct all errors after a system crash/unclean shutdown. I mention
> this because I see "softdep" in the above stack trace (usually refers to
> softupdates). I don't know if this got fixed, but the workaround is to
> use background_fsck="no" in rc.conf. Yes, after a crash this means you
> have to wait for the entire fsck to run.
>
When setting up my main machine 4 years ago, I turned off background
fsck... But I thought, things have improved sufficiently enough since
then :-( Maybe, background fsck should still be disabled by default?
And, IMO, at the very least, *any panic related to a file-system must
clearly identify the file-system in question*... What do you think?
Yours,
-mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C44758F.7080209>