For what (little :-) ) it's worth, I got bit by this too. Ultimately it
boils down to the problem that once the on-disk file system is sufficiently
broken, the journal doesn't have enough information for fsck to even detect
the problem, much less fix it.
(In my case the problem most likely was cr
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10 August 2013 19:19, AN wrote:
Hi All:
I am having a major problem on current at the moment, and I could really use
some help. I am at R253966 on amd64, my problem is the machine is panicing
with: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
I have booted into single
On 10 August 2013 19:19, AN wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I am having a major problem on current at the moment, and I could really use
> some help. I am at R253966 on amd64, my problem is the machine is panicing
> with: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
>
> I have booted into single user mode and run fsck, it reports
Hi All:
I am having a major problem on current at the moment, and I could really
use some help. I am at R253966 on amd64, my problem is the machine is
panicing with: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
I have booted into single user mode and run fsck, it reports that it has
fixed the file system but I st
That's ok, a more aggressive fsck-from-a-rescue-disk strategy managed
to clean things up.
J Anderson
On 6 October 2011 15:58, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
>
>> On 5 October 2011 23:50, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>> I was about to upgrade my build VM f
On 5 October 2011 23:50, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> I was about to upgrade my build VM from BETA2 to BETA3, but I can't
> seem to boot BETA2 any more: I get a "ffs_valloc: dup alloc" panic on
> boot, every time. fsck runs and says, "ok, I've cleaned things up for
> you", but then later on, when tr
I was about to upgrade my build VM from BETA2 to BETA3, but I can't
seem to boot BETA2 any more: I get a "ffs_valloc: dup alloc" panic on
boot, every time. fsck runs and says, "ok, I've cleaned things up for
you", but then later on, when trying to update motd, FFS dies.
Unfortunately, this is the
On 02Aug11 08:08, Callum Gibson wrote:
}I have an i386 -current from late Jul 18 which is running in VirtualBox
}(on 8.X amd64 host). After a VM reset I seem to have hit a SUJ-related issue.
}On boot the system produced a "panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc". Stack trace
}below (sorry had to
Hi,
I have an i386 -current from late Jul 18 which is running in VirtualBox
(on 8.X amd64 host). After a VM reset I seem to have hit a SUJ-related issue.
On boot the system produced a "panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc". Stack trace
below (sorry had to do this as a screenshot - I don't
panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
Debugger("panic")
Stopped at Debugger+0x54: xchgl %ebx,in_Debugger.0
db> t
Debugger(c052dc4b,c05f0440,c053fc70,e6a22888,100) at Debugger+0x54
panic(c053fc70,ff70,30,cb1438d4,8124) at panic+0xd5
ffs_valloc(cb3f37fc,8124,cb285c80,e6a228e0,40) a
to xdm. Nothing happened so I again breaked into ddb and did a
Alexander> "kill 1 1". Nothing happened again, so I decided to do a +
Alexander> (several times) -> boom.
Alexander> ---snip---
Alexander> panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
Alexander> panic: from debugger
Alexande
ot;kill 1 1". Nothing happened again, so I decided to do a +
(several times) -> boom.
---snip---
panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
panic: from debugger
Uptime: 4m9s
pfs_vncache_unload(): 1 entries remaining
[...]
#7 0xc025573c in kdb_trap (type=3, code=0, regs=0xd1d707cc)
at ../../../i386/i38
:
:Hi,
:
:-current from Sep 23.
:
:After a hard power off (because the system hung while switching from X
:to a virtual console) I got a panic while rebooting (background fsck
:enabled):
Disable background fsck.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mai
Hi,
-current from Sep 23.
After a hard power off (because the system hung while switching from X
to a virtual console) I got a panic while rebooting (background fsck
enabled):
---snip---
IdlePTD 4775936
initial pcb at 2bdf00
panicstr: from debugger
panic messages:
---
panic: ffs_valloc: dup
On 10 Oct, Michael Lucas wrote:
>> > > I hit the space bar, type in 'boot -s' and it goes through all the
>> > > normal start up procedures, sets up the networking, etc ...
>>
>> 'boot -s' don't work for me, I use 'boot /boot/kernel/kernel -s' instead.
>
> You're right. It's off to doc-land f
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 09:50:05PM +0400, Igor Timkin wrote:
> > > I hit the space bar, type in 'boot -s' and it goes through all the
> > > normal start up procedures, sets up the networking, etc ...
>
> 'boot -s' don't work for me, I use 'boot /boot/kernel/kernel -s' instead.
You're right. I
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:22:55PM -0400, Michael Lucas wrote:
> I'm experiencing this on a -current from sources supped on Oct 03.
>
> turtledawn~;uname -a
> FreeBSD turtledawn.blackhelicopters.org 5.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #0: Tue Oct
>3 10:58:59 EDT 2000
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/o
> > I hit the space bar, type in 'boot -s' and it goes through all the
> > normal start up procedures, sets up the networking, etc ...
'boot -s' don't work for me, I use 'boot /boot/kernel/kernel -s' instead.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current"
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Szilveszter Adam wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 02:06:24PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Michael Lucas wrote:
> >
> > > It's not just you. I just assumed I had done something wrong.
> > >
> > > Hitting ^C during bootup fsck gets me a single-use
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 07:13:49PM +0200, Szilveszter Adam wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 02:06:24PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Michael Lucas wrote:
> >
> > > It's not just you. I just assumed I had done something wrong.
> > >
> > > Hitting ^C during bootup fsck
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 02:06:24PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Michael Lucas wrote:
>
> > It's not just you. I just assumed I had done something wrong.
> >
> > Hitting ^C during bootup fsck gets me a single-user prompt.
>
> ah, good, that got me back up and running,
-s' and it goes through all the
> > normal start up procedures, sets up the networking, etc ...
> >
> > The reason I'm trying to get into single user mode is cause I
> > can't get into multi-user without it doing:
> >
> > =====
into single user mode is cause I
> can't get into multi-user without it doing:
>
> =
> Recovering vi editor sessions
> mode = 0100600, inum = 729, fs = /tmp
> panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
> cpuid = 0; lapic.id =
> Debugger("panic")
>
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > Well, I swear I have to be missing something here that is going to
> > make me slap my forehead, but I can't get into single user mode :(
> >
> > I hit the space bar, type in 'boot -s' and it go
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Well, I swear I have to be missing something here that is going to
> make me slap my forehead, but I can't get into single user mode :(
>
> I hit the space bar, type in 'boot -s' and it goes through all the
> normal start up procedures, s
networking, etc ...
The reason I'm trying to get into single user mode is cause I
can't get into multi-user without it doing:
=
Recovering vi editor sessions
mode = 0100600, inum = 729, fs = /tmp
panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
cpuid = 0; lapic.id =
Debugger(&qu
:> Wait a sec... softupdates does not depend on write ordering.
:> Softupdates issues all non-conflicting writes in parallel and
:> doesn't care what order they are written to the disk. When
:> those complete, softupdates will then followup with all the
:> writes that depend
On Friday, 19 May 2000 at 12:43:28 -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
>> Greg Lehey wrote:
>>>
>>> As far as soft updates goes, basically it's incompatible with Vinum,
>>> since there's currently no way of ensuring the sequence of writes
>>> across a number of disks. I'm thinking of ways of doing it,
:Greg Lehey wrote:
:>
:> As far as soft updates goes, basically it's incompatible with Vinum,
:> since there's currently no way of ensuring the sequence of writes
:> across a number of disks. I'm thinking of ways of doing it, but they
:> will cause significant loss in performance. There should
Greg Lehey wrote:
>
> As far as soft updates goes, basically it's incompatible with Vinum,
> since there's currently no way of ensuring the sequence of writes
> across a number of disks. I'm thinking of ways of doing it, but they
> will cause significant loss in performance. There should be no
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:20:44PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
> I only stumbled on this thread by accident. If you have problems
> which involve Vinum, please copy me, and I may have input.
Ok, thanks. Wasn't at all sure vinum had anything to do with this
crash (and I still don't know if it has),
I only stumbled on this thread by accident. If you have problems
which involve Vinum, please copy me, and I may have input.
On Friday, 19 May 2000 at 7:55:37 +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:24:39AM +0200, Niels Chr. Bank-Pedersen wrote:
>> On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 12:01:5
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:24:39AM +0200, Niels Chr. Bank-Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 12:01:59AM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 11:43:58PM +0200, Niels Chr. Bank-Pedersen wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 11:21:51PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > > > Does v
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 12:01:59AM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 11:43:58PM +0200, Niels Chr. Bank-Pedersen wrote:
> > On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 11:21:51PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > > Does vinum list saying that one subdisk of your R5 volume is down?
> >
> > 5 subdisks:
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 11:43:58PM +0200, Niels Chr. Bank-Pedersen wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 11:21:51PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > Does vinum list saying that one subdisk of your R5 volume is down?
>
> 5 subdisks:
> S raid5.p0.s0 State: up PO:0 B Size: 4133
> > the box freezes totally when trying to use the filesystem
> > (mkdir xxx; cd xxx -> crash), but last time it dropped
> > to the debugger:
> >
> > mode = 040755, inum = 25344, fs = /raid5
> > panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
> > Debugger("pa
> crash), but last time it dropped
> to the debugger:
>
> mode = 040755, inum = 25344, fs = /raid5
> panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
> Debugger("panic")
> Stopped at Debugger+0x35: movb$0,in_Debugger.390
> db> trace
> Debugger(c0245ca3) at Debugger+0
d5
panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
Debugger("panic")
Stopped at Debugger+0x35: movb$0,in_Debugger.390
db> trace
Debugger(c0245ca3) at Debugger+0x35
panic(c0252541,c0252520,41ed,6300,c109e0d4) at panic+0x70
ffs_valloc(c9e7e300,41ed,c1171400,c9e69d08,c9e69e70) at ffs_valloc+0xf8
ufs_mk
38 matches
Mail list logo
