On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:23:36AM +0200, Janos Haar wrote:
quoted text
> >If you run:
> >
> >$ xfs_db -r -c "inode 474253940" -c p /dev/sdb2
> >
> >Then I can can confirm whether there is corruption on disk or not.
> >Probably best to sample multiple of the inode numbers from the above
> >list of bad inodes.
> 
> Here is the log:
> http://download.netcenter.hu/bughunt/20100413/debug.log

There are multiple fields in the inode that are corrupted.
I am really surprised that xfs-repair - even an old version - is not
picking up the corruption....

quoted text
> The xfs_db does segmentation fault. :-)

Yup, it probably ran off into la-la land chasing corrupted
extent pointers.

quoted text
> Btw memory corruption:
> In the beginnig of march, one of my bets was memory problem too, but
> the server was offline for 7 days, and all the time runs the
> memtest86 on the hw, and passed all the 8GB 74 times without any bit
> error.
> I don't think it is memory problem, additionally the server can
> create big size  .tar.gz files without crc problem.

Ok.

quoted text
> If i force my mind to think to hw memory problem, i can think only
> for the raid card's cache memory, wich i can't test with memtest86.
> Or the cache of the HDD's pcb...

Yes, it could be something like that, too, but the only way to test
it is to swap out the card....

quoted text
> In the other hand, i have seen more people reported memory
> corruption about these kernel versions, can we check this and surely
> select wich is the problem? (hw or sw)?

I haven't heard of any significant memory corruption problems in
2.6.32 or 2.6.33, but it is a possibility given the nature of the
corruption. However, I may have only happened once and be completely
unreproducable.

I'd suggest fixing the existing corruption first, and then seeing if
it re-appears. If it does reappear, then we know there's a
reproducable problem we need to dig out....

quoted text
> I mean, if i am right, the hw memory problem makes only 1-2 bit
> corruption seriously, and the sw page handling problem makes bad
> memory pages, no?

RAM ECC guarantees correction of single bit errors and detection of
double bit errors (which cause the kernel to panic, IIRC). I can't
tell you what happens when larger errors occur, though...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/