I had a strange experience on my laptop yesterday. I was deleting a
directory and the system crashed. It spat out a message along the
lines of ufs_dirrem bad link count 2 on parent. I thought it was so
strange I repeated the process several times, and each time it
crashed. Is this behavior
El 27/07/2013 13:49, David Noel david.i.n...@gmail.com escribió:
I had a strange experience on my laptop yesterday. I was deleting a
directory and the system crashed. It spat out a message along the
lines of ufs_dirrem bad link count 2 on parent. I thought it was so
strange I repeated the
Yes
On 7/27/13, Fernando Apesteguía fernando.apesteg...@gmail.com wrote:
El 27/07/2013 13:49, David Noel david.i.n...@gmail.com escribió:
I had a strange experience on my laptop yesterday. I was deleting a
directory and the system crashed. It spat out a message along the
lines of ufs_dirrem
El 27/07/2013 14:16, David Noel david.i.n...@gmail.com escribió:
Yes
Post the stack trace of the core and maybe someone can help you.
On 7/27/13, Fernando Apesteguía fernando.apesteg...@gmail.com wrote:
El 27/07/2013 13:49, David Noel david.i.n...@gmail.com escribió:
I had a strange
Post the stack trace of the core and maybe someone can help you.
panic: ufs_dirrem: Bad link count 2 on parent
cpuid = 0
KDB: stack backtrace:
#0 0x808680fe at kdb_backtrace+0x5e
#1 0x80832cb7 at panic+0x187
#2 0x80a700e3 at ufs_rmdir+0x1c3
#3 0x80b7d484 at
On 27/07/2013 13:58, David Noel wrote:
Post the stack trace of the core and maybe someone can help you.
panic: ufs_dirrem: Bad link count 2 on parent
cpuid = 0
KDB: stack backtrace:
#0 0x808680fe at kdb_backtrace+0x5e
#1 0x80832cb7 at panic+0x187
#2 0x80a700e3 at
I'm taking a guess here - the effective link count when it came to
removing the parent directory was only two and it should have been three
or more. This gets sanity checked this before proceeding, and panics if
it is not. Why an effective link count of three? We're talking about the
parent
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:56:09 -0400, kpneal wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 07:30:17PM +, Walter Hurry wrote:
I'd like to try out 9.2-BETA1 on a test box.
From where do I check out the sources please (using svn)?
I believe you want:
svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/9
After
On 07/27/2013 11:30, David Noel wrote:
-- it's a laptop and I've inadvertently run the battery down to
nothing a few times in the past. All the same, it was a very strange
experience. I would not have expected a kernel panic from a simple rm
-rf!
You may want to look into running fsck(8) and
On 07/27/13 14:58, David Noel wrote:
Post the stack trace of the core and maybe someone can help you.
panic: ufs_dirrem: Bad link count 2 on parent
cpuid = 0
KDB: stack backtrace:
#0 0x808680fe at kdb_backtrace+0x5e
#1 0x80832cb7 at panic+0x187
#2 0x80a700e3 at
Hi,
I have a workstation with two factory installed hard disks. The first disk,
ada0, is occupied by a Windows 7 Pro OS (mainly kept for the three year
warranty of the workstation as Dell techs mostly speak the Microsoft
language).
Instead I have configured the BIOS to boot from the MBR on
You may want to look into running fsck(8) and its myriad of options
fsck did the trick
Also make sure you have soft updates enabled on your filesystem and
preferably journaled soft updates
..pretty sure I do but I'll double check, thanks.
___
So the system panics in ufs_rmdir(). Maybe the filesystem is
corrupt? Have you tried to fsck(8) it manually?
fsck worked, though I had to boot from a USB image because I couldn't
get into single user.. for some odd reason.
Even if the filesystem is corrupt, ufs_rmdir() shouldn't
panic(),
Just down loaded the 9.2-BETA1 iso.
Thought others would be interested to know it is available.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
On 27/07/2013 19:57, David Noel wrote:
So the system panics in ufs_rmdir(). Maybe the filesystem is
corrupt? Have you tried to fsck(8) it manually?
fsck worked, though I had to boot from a USB image because I couldn't
get into single user.. for some odd reason.
Even if the filesystem is
I was going to raise an issue when the discussion had died down to a
concensus. I also don't think it's reasonable for the kernel to bomb
when it encounters corruption on a disk.
If you want to patch it yourself, edit sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_vnops.c at around
line 2791 change:
if
On 27/07/2013 20:38, David Noel wrote:
I was going to raise an issue when the discussion had died down to a
concensus. I also don't think it's reasonable for the kernel to bomb
when it encounters corruption on a disk.
If you want to patch it yourself, edit sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_vnops.c at around
line
On 07/27/13 20:57, David Noel wrote:
So the system panics in ufs_rmdir(). Maybe the filesystem is
corrupt? Have you tried to fsck(8) it manually?
fsck worked, though I had to boot from a USB image because I couldn't
get into single user.. for some odd reason.
Even if the filesystem is
Yes. It'd be nice if UFS/FFS would just downgrade things to read-only
and not panic.
-Adrian
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
Hi all,
I've 2 IOExtreme 80GB cards that work as a stipe yielding 160GB.
These cards use exceptionally fast high quality RAM.
I called support about Centos6/FreeBSD support but they said nada.
The cards do work in Centos6 and I suspect they just wanted to reduce support
load, etc...
Does
There is a specific feature I need to see if it is in 9.2 or just 10
where can I find the draft release notes for 9.2?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:57:31 -0500, David Noel wrote:
So the system panics in ufs_rmdir(). Maybe the filesystem is
corrupt? Have you tried to fsck(8) it manually?
fsck worked, though I had to boot from a USB image because I couldn't
get into single user.. for some odd reason.
From your
And here, kids, you can see the strength of open source
operating system: You can see _why_ something happens. :-)
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:35:09 +0100, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
On 27/07/2013 19:57, David Noel wrote:
So the system panics in ufs_rmdir(). Maybe the filesystem is
corrupt? Have you
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:57:07 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Yes. It'd be nice if UFS/FFS would just downgrade things to read-only
and not panic.
That would be possible, but it would confuse programs and users.
It's not that you could walk up to the disk drive and flip the
write protect switch
24 matches
Mail list logo
