[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: FS corruption because of bufio_cache pool depletion?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 07:02:23PM +0100, Christoph Badura wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 03:32:23PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > Can you give more details on the corruption ?
> > Was it only directory entries that were corrupted, or did you notice
> > corruptions in the data block too ?
> I was seeing corruption in data blocks too. That's what I meant, when I
> mentioned corrupt CVS/Root files. Fsck complained about directories that
> were corrupted right at the start of the data block. I think I didn't save
> the error messages. But "." and ".." were corrupt or missing.
That what I've seen, although I'm not aware of corrupted data block
(but it's rare enough that nobody have complained, if they
ever noticed data corruption).
> I have a netbsd-3/Xen 2 based server that runs on the same hardware and we
> have seen FS corruption in a particular domU on that system taqt seems to be
> related to the file system running out of space. That's what the co-admin
> running that domU tells me anyway. But I haven't seen the damage or the
> error messages in the domU personally.
I've seen this too: kern/41834. There is also kern/35704 on 3.0
about this topic.
> > > raid1: IO failed after 5 retries.
> > > cgd1: error 5
> > > xbd IO domain 1: error 5
> > It seems raidframe doesn't do anything special for memory failure.
> Greg tells me that raidframe does retry several times. And the above error
> indicates that it retried 5 times.
If it retried 5 times in a row without sleeping, it's unlikely to
have more ressources than on the first time.
On the other hand this could be a deadlock condition: needs to write
to disk to free memory, but needs memory to write to disk ...
Setting a low watermark on the pool may help for this.
> Note that I only got the above message exactly once. But the pool stats
> indicated several hundred allocation failures.
> I am contemplating collecting stack traces when getiobuf can't get a buf from
> the pool and maybe checking that it does always get a buf when it is called
> with waitok==true.
From what I've seen it would return NULL if it couldn't get a buf,
and in this case the caller would dereference a NULL pointer very quickly.
> I wonder if the b_iodone issues you are investigating have an impact on this.
With cgd, it can certainly lead to on-disk corruption, yes.
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
Main Index |
Thread Index |