Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel BUG

2008-10-07 Thread Christian van Barneveld
m: Sunil Mushran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: zaterdag 4 oktober 2008 2:45 > To: Christian van Barneveld > Cc: 'ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com' > Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel BUG > > This is the same as issue. > http://oss.oracle.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1012

Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel BUG

2008-10-03 Thread Sunil Mushran
This is the same as issue. http://oss.oracle.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1012 Is this happening frequently? We have failed to reproduce it in our test cluster. If you can reproduce it, I could give you a potential fix for testing. Let me know. Sunil Christian van Barneveld wrote: > Hi, > > Th

[Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel BUG

2008-10-03 Thread Christian van Barneveld
Hi, The last few weeks we had several times a kernel stacktrace and after that the ocfs2 filesystems don't respond anymore (no output on ls) at all the nodes. Kern.log at node-2 Oct 3 06:57:18 XXX kernel: (7178,0):dlm

Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel BUG

2008-08-01 Thread Sunil Mushran
No, the kernel is old. A year+ old. Refer to this announcement below. http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-announce/2008-July/26.html From the stack, it looks you are encountering the rename/extend race that was fixed a long time ago. http://oss.oracle.com/projects/ocfs2/news/article_14.htm

Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel BUG

2008-08-01 Thread Peter Selzner
* Tao Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01.08.08 10:58] Hi, hanks for your quick reply. Here the details: xxx:/ # SPident CONCLUSION: System is up-to-date! foundSLE-10-i386-SP1 + "online updates" xxx:/ # uname -r 2.6.16.46-0.12-bigsmp xxx:/ # cat /proc/fs/ocfs2/version OCFS2 1.2.5-SLES-r2997 Tu

Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel BUG

2008-08-01 Thread Tao Ma
Hi, Please provide the detail info of ocfs2 version which may be helpful for diagnose. Peter Selzner wrote: > Hi, > > we had this entries in /var/log/messeges a few days ago: > > Jul 28 23:30:47 xxx kernel: (12268,2):ocfs2_extend_file:790 ERROR: bug > expression: i_size_read(inode) !=

[Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel BUG

2008-08-01 Thread Peter Selzner
Hi, we had this entries in /var/log/messeges a few days ago: Jul 28 23:30:47 xxx kernel: (12268,2):ocfs2_extend_file:790 ERROR: bug expression: i_size_read(inode) != (le64_to_cpu(fe->i_size) - *bytes_extended) Jul 28 23:30:47 xxx kernel: (12268,2):ocfs2_extend_file:790 ERROR: Inode 8323098 i_si

Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel bug in Fedora Core 4 update kernel

2007-01-25 Thread davide rossetti
On 1/25/07, Sunil Mushran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is not a fs issue. As in the file must be alright. This is a dlm issue. The fs is asking the dlm to free the lock and the dlm is stuck. How many nodes do you have? We've fixed a bunch of dlm bugs since what you appear to be running. th

Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel bug in Fedora Core 4 update kernel

2007-01-24 Thread Sunil Mushran
This is not a fs issue. As in the file must be alright. This is a dlm issue. The fs is asking the dlm to free the lock and the dlm is stuck. How many nodes do you have? We've fixed a bunch of dlm bugs since what you appear to be running. davide rossetti wrote: I rebooted the two faulty nodes. no

Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel bug in Fedora Core 4 update kernel

2007-01-24 Thread davide rossetti
On 1/23/07, Sunil Mushran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not really. The mainline tree is labeled 1.3.x because it is the tree we add new features too. But bug fixes are applied to both 1.2 and 1.3 separately so it is hard to tell by the version# alone. This is the fix in the git tree: commit 4b1a

Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel bug in Fedora Core 4 update kernel

2007-01-24 Thread davide rossetti
I rebooted the two faulty nodes. now, I can't access anymore the file which was involved in the crash: /mi11/simma/ghmc/m24/JOB.log using the faq document, I'm trying to check the situation: Lockres: M003d60c63da894d788 Mode: No Lock Flags: Initialized Attached Busy RO Holders: 0 E

Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel bug in Fedora Core 4 update kernel

2007-01-23 Thread Sunil Mushran
Not really. The mainline tree is labeled 1.3.x because it is the tree we add new features too. But bug fixes are applied to both 1.2 and 1.3 separately so it is hard to tell by the version# alone. This is the fix in the git tree: commit 4b1af774451bbc8440719e3fe441934a337c3b63 Author: Kurt Hacke

Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel bug in Fedora Core 4 update kernel

2007-01-23 Thread davide rossetti
On 1/23/07, Sunil Mushran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This was the lvb issue that was fixed long ago. In the 1.2 tree, it was fixed in 1.2.2. 2.6.18 should definitely have the fix for this. it seems it's even more recent: /var/log/messages.4:Dec 27 19:40:40 rack1 kernel: OCFS2 Node Manager 1.

Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel bug in Fedora Core 4 update kernel

2007-01-23 Thread Sunil Mushran
This was the lvb issue that was fixed long ago. In the 1.2 tree, it was fixed in 1.2.2. 2.6.18 should definitely have the fix for this. davide rossetti wrote: OS: Fedora Core release 4 (Stentz) KERNEL: Linux rack1.ape 2.6.17-1.2142_FC4smp #1 SMP Tue Jul 11 22:57:02 EDT 2006 i686 i686 i386 GNU/

[Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 kernel bug in Fedora Core 4 update kernel

2007-01-23 Thread davide rossetti
OS: Fedora Core release 4 (Stentz) KERNEL: Linux rack1.ape 2.6.17-1.2142_FC4smp #1 SMP Tue Jul 11 22:57:02 EDT 2006 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux CLUSTER: 11 Linux kernels, mixed environment FC4,FC5,FC6 SAN: FC Infortrend storage, QLogic16 port FC switch, FC adapter LSI FC929X (21224,1):ocfs2_trunca