On Tuesday, February 13, 2001 01:39:02 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris, your quoting is very confusing above. but I get your very
> interesting remark (thanks for noticing) that the nulls are specific to
> crashes on 2.2, and therefor could be due to the elevator bug
Chris Mason wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 12, 2001 11:42:38 PM +0300 Hans Reiser
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> Do you know if the people reporting the corruption with reiserfs on
> >> 2.4 were using IDE drives with PIO mode and IDE multicount turned on?
> >>
> >> If so, i
Chris Mason wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 12, 2001 11:42:38 PM +0300 Hans Reiser
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> Do you know if the people reporting the corruption with reiserfs on
> >> 2.4 were using IDE drives with PIO mode and IDE multicount turned on?
> >>
> >> If so, i
On Monday, February 12, 2001 11:42:38 PM +0300 Hans Reiser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> Do you know if the people reporting the corruption with reiserfs on
>> 2.4 were using IDE drives with PIO mode and IDE multicount turned on?
>>
>> If so, it may be caused by the problem fixed
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> > Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:00:11 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Daniel
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:00:11 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 11 Feb 2001
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:00:11 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel Stone wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 11 Feb 2001 02:02:00 +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > >> > On Thu, Feb 08, 200
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:00:11 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Daniel Stone wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11 Feb 2001 02:02:00 +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Kleen) writes:
>to the low level file system for efficient lookup (actually is all not
>too difficult to implement, just requires very uncodefreezefriendly changes
>to nfsd)
Well, at least I would really prefer a change for 2.4.x the sooner the
better as I will never ev
Rogerio Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Feb 11 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The reiserfs nfs problem in standard 2.4 is very simple -- it'll
> > barf as soon as you run out of file handle/inode cache. Any workload
> > that accesses enough files in parallel can trigger it.
>
> I'm jus
> Not the slightest idea. Is the connectathon test suite something that stresses
> the FS heavily? If so, we can always add it to our stable, whether or not it
> stresses this particular bug.
It certainly has been stressing the NFS side of things enough to show up a lot
of problems so maybe
-
On Feb 11 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
> The reiserfs nfs problem in standard 2.4 is very simple -- it'll
> barf as soon as you run out of file handle/inode cache. Any workload
> that accesses enough files in parallel can trigger it.
I'm just trying to evaluate if I should use reiserfs here or
On Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:00:11 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Feb 2001 02:02:00 +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> >
>> > I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems t
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > LADDIS is the industry standard benchmark for NFS. It crashes for ReiserFS and
> > NFS. We can't afford to buy it, as it is proprietary software. Once Nikita has
> > finished testing his changes, we will ask someone to test it for us though.
> >
>
> Do you know if the co
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > LADDIS is the industry standard benchmark for NFS. It crashes for ReiserFS and
> > NFS. We can't afford to buy it, as it is proprietary software. Once Nikita has
> > finished testing his changes, we will ask someone to test it for us though.
> >
>
> D
> LADDIS is the industry standard benchmark for NFS. It crashes for ReiserFS and
> NFS. We can't afford to buy it, as it is proprietary software. Once Nikita has
> finished testing his changes, we will ask someone to test it for us though.
>
Do you know if the connectathon test suites show th
> run reiserfs on several servers, workstations, and a notebook. I have
> current kernels and have watched carefully for corruption. I haven't
> seen any evidence of corruption on any of them including my notebook
> which has a bad battery and bad power connection so it tends to
> instantly
Adrian Phillips wrote:
>
> > "Hans" == Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hans> Adrian Phillips wrote:
> >> Does your test procedure include other systems, for example
> >> reiserfs plus NFS ?
>
> Hans> Our NFS testing is simply inadequate, we need a copy of
>
> "Hans" == Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hans> Adrian Phillips wrote:
>> Does your test procedure include other systems, for example
>> reiserfs plus NFS ?
Hans> Our NFS testing is simply inadequate, we need a copy of
Hans> LADDIS but haven't found the money f
Adrian Phillips wrote:
>
> Does your test procedure include other systems, for example reiserfs
> plus NFS ?
Our NFS testing is simply inadequate, we need a copy of LADDIS but haven't found
the money for it yet.
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
t
Alan Cox wrote:
> Before you put that down to reiserfs can you chek 2.4.2-pre2. It may be
> problems below the reiserfs layer
I forgot, this bug exists on reiserfs for Linux 2.2.*, so it isn't going to be
fixed by 2.4.2 (assuming that the bug is not in 2.2.*).
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this li
David Ford wrote:
>
> Alan Cox wrote:
>
> >> I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
> >> mbox'es randomly.
> >> Using the old-style Reiser FS format, 2.4.2-pre1, Evolution, on a CMD640
> >> chipset with the fixes enabled.
> >> This also occurs in some log files, but I
Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> On 11 Feb 2001 02:02:00 +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >
> > I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
> > mbox'es randomly.
> >
> > what kind of corruption are you seeing?
>
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
> mbox'es randomly.
>
> what kind of corruption are you seeing?
>
> This also occurs in some log files, but I put it down t
On Saturday 10 February 2001 22:16, David Ford wrote:
> Just as an aside, I've watched this conversation go on and on while I
> run reiserfs on several servers, workstations, and a notebook. I
> have current kernels and have watched carefully for corruption. I
> haven't seen any evidence of cor
Alan Cox wrote:
>> I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
>> mbox'es randomly.
>> Using the old-style Reiser FS format, 2.4.2-pre1, Evolution, on a CMD640
>> chipset with the fixes enabled.
>> This also occurs in some log files, but I put it down to syslogd
>> crashing
> I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
> mbox'es randomly.
> Using the old-style Reiser FS format, 2.4.2-pre1, Evolution, on a CMD640
> chipset with the fixes enabled.
> This also occurs in some log files, but I put it down to syslogd
> crashing or something.
Before
On 11 Feb 2001 02:02:00 +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
> mbox'es randomly.
>
> what kind of corruption are you seeing?
Zeroed bytes.
> This also occu
On 07 Feb 2001 11:48:16 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 08:38:54 AM -0800 David Rees
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:47:09AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, how about we list the known bugs:
> >>
> >> zeros in log files, ap
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:05:51 PM +0100 Xuan Baldauf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mhhh. It's a busy server from which I am about 700km away. I don't like to
> restart it now. (Especially because it cannot boot from hard disk, only
> from floppy disk, due to bios problems). But I'd be
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thursday, February 08, 2001 10:47:29 AM +1300 Chris Wedgwood
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > these appear on your system every couple of days right? if so... are
> > you able to run with the fs mount notails for a couple of days and
> > see if you still experience the
On Thursday, February 08, 2001 10:47:29 AM +1300 Chris Wedgwood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> these appear on your system every couple of days right? if so... are
> you able to run with the fs mount notails for a couple of days and
> see if you still experience these?
>
> my guess is you probab
Hi Chris,
this is the output of my zero block detection utility. Note that in all the
files mentioned, zero bytes never can exist there, so every zero byte is a bug.
The output format is:
${filename} ${decompressed?"d":"n"} ${startIndex} ${endIndex} ${length}
The data (sorted):
_log.2001-01-16
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 07:41:25 PM +0100 Vedran Rodic
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > So could some of this bugs also be present in 3.5.x version of reiserfs?
> > Will you be fixing them for that version?
> >
>
> This list of re
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 07:41:25 PM +0100 Vedran Rodic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So could some of this bugs also be present in 3.5.x version of reiserfs?
> Will you be fixing them for that version?
>
This list of reiserfs bugs was all specific to the 3.6.x versions, and they
don
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:47:09AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>
> Ok, how about we list the known bugs:
>
> zeros in log files, apparently only between bytes 2048 and 4096 (not
> reproduced yet).
>
> preallocated block leak on crash (fix in testing)
>
> hidden directory entry cleanup (still
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 06:30:01 PM +0100 Xuan Baldauf
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In my case, it's a SIS5513 board.
> >
> > I have to note that I now have one case which is between offset 9260 and
> > 11016. So probably the tails unpacking theory does not work
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 06:30:01 PM +0100 Xuan Baldauf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my case, it's a SIS5513 board.
>
> I have to note that I now have one case which is between offset 9260 and
> 11016. So probably the tails unpacking theory does not work out.
>
> After a more systema
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 08:38:54 AM -0800 David Rees
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:47:09AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> Ok, how about we list the known bugs:
>>
>> zeros in log files, apparently only between bytes 2048 and 4096 (not
>> reproduced yet).
>
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:47:09AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> Ok, how about we list the known bugs:
>
> zeros in log files, apparently only between bytes 2048 and 4096 (not
> reproduced yet).
Could this bug be related to the reported corruption that people with
new VIA chipsets have been als
Ok, how about we list the known bugs:
zeros in log files, apparently only between bytes 2048 and 4096 (not
reproduced yet).
preallocated block leak on crash (fix in testing)
hidden directory entry cleanup (still reproducing, very hard to hit).
knfsd (patches in testing).
oops in reiserfs_sy
I know that our number of users has increased, but I doubt that the increase is
sufficient to match the marked increase in bug reports on reiserfs-list. Please
be patient as we work on this. We will issue a patch this week that will fix
some bugs (NFS i_generation count losing, and space leakage
42 matches
Mail list logo
