* On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:33 PM, <sf...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > Hmm, > I don't know why /rw is still full even you ran > /rw/root# rm large.log.* > > And why your rootfs is equivalent to /rw?
/rw is the "upper" overlay (/ro the lower one) of /. > Will you show me how you mounted aufs and branchs, and how you chroot or > switch_root? mounting aufs by having aufs=tmpfs in /boot/grub/grub.cfg and using script (I was told "in a slightly modified version" o.O): http://wiki.debianforum.de/Debian_Squeeze_auf_einem_Alix_2D13#Skript but on newer Debian 7 ("Wheezy"). At the described test case, there was no chroot or switch_root involved. I'm removing from /rw/ because I thought you asked me to remove them bypassing aufs and "mount -o remount /" afterwards. >> # n=0; while true; do dd if=/dev/zero of=large.log.$((n++)) bs=1M >> 2>/dev/null ; done >> ....wait...wait...wait... >> ^C > > I am afraid you missed "count=xx" for dd(1). It should be infinite, to fill the disk. First is a large file, all others are zero byte files. >> /rw/root# ls -rt|tail >> -bash: tail: command not found > > This EIO might be caused by disk full and aufs could not write XINO. > But the message "command not found" looks strange to me. > As you wrote in the first mail, aufs returns EIO when writing XINO > failed. > Weren't any kernel log messages left? I got "command not found" for tail, less etc, so I couldn't check. >> /rw/root# rm large.log.* >> -bash: /bin/rm: No space left on device > > The current working dir is /rw/root which is not aufs. > I don't know why tmpfs behaves like this. This situation looks out of > aufs. Ahh yes, of course, when bypassing aufs still does not allow to rm, it seems to be no aufs issue! > One possibility which aufs may concern is the shared objects and the > command binary. The command rm(1) exists in /bin/rm which is in > aufs. And when /bin/rm is accessed, aufs writes the inode number to the > XINO file and it may be necessary to allocate a new disk block. But it > happens at the first time only. Later when /bin/rm is accessed, XINO > file doesn't require a new disk block. > If aufs failed to write XINO, then aufs returns EIO instead of ENOSPC. > So "/bin/rm: No space left on device" on tmpfs is really really strange. mmm.... >> Do I understand correctly that calling "mount -o remount /" every >> few minutes is recommended? > > Not recommended because it is meangless. > The simple remount has an effect to discard caches. I don't think it is > necessary for you. Ahh OK, thanks for the clarification. > If you try bypassing aufs regularly, it is recommended to enable > CONFIG_AUFS_NOTIFY and specify "udba=notify". > Since you may want to stick on the vanilla debian wheezy kernel (and > aufs module), it may not be an option for you. Yes, I've read this in some README but there were reasons against it, probably that normal Debian kernel should not be changed to avoid the maintenance burden (package server...), at least... Regards, Steffen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58040911&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
