On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Charles Polisher cpol...@surewest.net wrote:
On Jan 07, 2015 at 01:47:53PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
I see a bunch of entries like:
ioatdma :00:08.0: Channel halted, chanerr = 2
ioatdma :00:08.0: Channel halted, chanerr = 0
in the logs and one of
On Jan 07, 2015 at 01:47:53PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
I see a bunch of entries like:
ioatdma :00:08.0: Channel halted, chanerr = 2
ioatdma :00:08.0: Channel halted, chanerr = 0
in the logs and one of these:
hrtimer: interrupt took 258633 ns
Not sure what those mean. We do
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Keith Keller
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote:
On 2015-01-07, Gordon Messmer gordon.mess...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, the other possibility is simply that you've formatted your
own filesystems, and they have a maximum mount count or a check
interval.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Gary Greene ggre...@minervanetworks.com wrote:
Problem is, Gordon, the layer I’m talking about is _below_ the logical layer
that filesystems live at, in the block layer, at the mercy of drivers, and
firmware that the kernel has zero control over. While in a
On 1/7/2015 11:30 AM, Gary Greene wrote:
During the reboot, most card’s drivers on init, will invalidate the cache on
the card to ensure dirty pages of data don’t get flushed to disk, to prevent
scribbling junk data to the platters. From what I recall, this is true of both
the megaraid and
On 1/7/2015 12:15 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Actually, the WD Reds and similar are just fine.
those are specifically sold for use in small NAS (raid) environments, so
yeah, they are configured 'correctly'.
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the
On 01/07/2015 05:53 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Yes - the unattended fsck fails.
In that case, there should be logs indicating the cause of the error
when it was detected by the kernel. There's probably something wrong
with your controller or other hardware.
Personally, I'd prefer for the
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:30 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
Right... but only cost 133% (about) more than consumer drives, as opposed
to the 300% that the server/enterprise grade drives' cost.
well, those $$$ drives are likely SAS rather than SATA, and that has other
On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:08 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 1/7/2015 11:30 AM, Gary Greene wrote:
During the reboot, most card’s drivers on init, will invalidate the cache on
the card to ensure dirty pages of data don’t get flushed to disk, to prevent
scribbling junk data to
On 1/7/2015 12:50 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Right... but only cost 133% (about) more than consumer drives, as opposed
to the 300% that the server/enterprise grade drives' cost.
well, those $$$ drives are likely SAS rather than SATA, and that has
other advantages... 10k or 15k RPM gives you
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Valeri Galtsev
galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
Not junk - these are mostly IBM 3550/3650 boxes - pretty much top of
the line in their day (before the M2/3/4 versions), They have
Adaptec raid contollers,
I never had Adaptec in _my_ list of good RAID
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:15 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Yes - the unattended fsck fails. Personally, I'd prefer for the
default run to use '-y' in the first place. It's not like I'm more
likely than fsck to know how to fix it and it is very inconvenient on
remote machines. The recent
On Wed, January 7, 2015 10:54 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Valeri Galtsev
galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
Not junk - these are mostly IBM 3550/3650 boxes - pretty much top of
the line in their day (before the M2/3/4 versions), They have
Adaptec raid contollers,
On 01/07/2015 08:53 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Keith Keller
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote:
On 2015-01-07, Gordon Messmer gordon.mess...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, the other possibility is simply that you've formatted your
own filesystems, and they have
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Gordon Messmer gordon.mess...@gmail.com wrote:
Every regular file's directory entry on your system is a hard link. There's
nothing particular about links (files) that make a filesystem fragile.
Agreed, although when there are millions, the fsck fixing it is
On Wed, January 7, 2015 10:33 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Gordon Messmer gordon.mess...@gmail.com
wrote:
Every regular file's directory entry on your system is a hard link.
There's
nothing particular about links (files) that make a filesystem fragile.
Agreed,
On Jan 6, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Gary Greene ggre...@minervanetworks.com
wrote:
Almost every controller and drive out there now lies about what is and isn’t
flushed to disk, making it nigh on impossible for the
On Jan 6, 2015, at 9:23 PM, Gordon Messmer gordon.mess...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/2015 04:37 PM, Gary Greene wrote:
This has been discussed to death on various lists, including the
LKML...
Almost every controller and drive out there now lies about what is
and isn’t flushed to disk,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
I've had a few systems with a lot of RAM and very busy filesystems
come up with filesystem errors that took a manual 'fsck -y' after what
should have been a clean reboot. This is particularly annoying on
remote systems where I have to talk
On Jan 6, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Fran Garcia franchu.gar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
I've had a few systems with a lot of RAM and very busy filesystems
come up with filesystem errors that took a manual 'fsck -y' after what
should have been a clean
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Gary Greene ggre...@minervanetworks.com wrote:
Almost every controller and drive out there now lies about what is and isn’t
flushed to disk, making it nigh on impossible for the Kernel to reliably know
100% of the time that the data HAS been flushed to disk.
On 01/06/2015 04:37 PM, Gary Greene wrote:
This has been discussed to death on various lists, including the
LKML...
Almost every controller and drive out there now lies about what is
and isn’t flushed to disk, making it nigh on impossible for the
Kernel to reliably know 100% of the time that
On 2015-01-07, Gordon Messmer gordon.mess...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, the other possibility is simply that you've formatted your
own filesystems, and they have a maximum mount count or a check
interval.
If Les is having to run fsck manually, as he wrote in his OP, then this
is unlikely
I've had a few systems with a lot of RAM and very busy filesystems
come up with filesystem errors that took a manual 'fsck -y' after what
should have been a clean reboot. This is particularly annoying on
remote systems where I have to talk someone else through the recovery.
Is there some time
24 matches
Mail list logo
