On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczer...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Jan Kara wrote: > >> On Fri 24-06-11 11:03:52, Moffett, Kyle D wrote: >> > On Jun 24, 2011, at 09:46, Jan Kara wrote: >> > > On Thu 23-06-11 16:19:08, Moffett, Kyle D wrote: >> > >> Besides which, line 534 in the Debian 2.6.32 kernel I am using is this >> > >> one: >> > >> >> > >> J_ASSERT(commit_transaction->t_nr_buffers <= >> > >> commit_transaction->t_outstanding_credits); >> > > >> > > Hmm, OK, so we've used more metadata buffers than we told JBD2 to >> > > reserve. I suppose you are not using data=journal mode and the filesystem >> > > was created as ext4 (i.e. not converted from ext3), right? Are you using >> > > quotas? >> > >> > The filesystem *is* using data=journal mode. If I switch to data=ordered >> > or data=writeback, the problem goes away. >> Ah, OK. Then bug https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34642 is >> probably ext3 incarnation of the same problem and it seems it's still >> present even in the current kernel - that ext3 assertion triggered even >> with 2.6.39 kernel. Frankly data=journal mode is far less tested than the >> other two modes especially with ext4, so I'm not sure how good idea is to >> use it in production. > > Hi Jan, > > if it is so (and it probably is, since I am not testing this mode as > well:), it would be interesting to find out whether there are many users > of this and if there are not, which is probably the case, deprecate it now, > so we can remove it later. If we are openly suggesting not to use this, > then there is probably no point in having this option in the first > place. > > I vaguely remember that Ted said something about removing data=journal > mode, but I do not remember details. Ted ? >
I think Ted was plotting about removing data=ordered... Amir. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
