More filesystem corruption under 2.4.1-pre8 and SW Raid5
Quoted 4 lines
Another thing I notice is that the responsiveness of the machine decreases dramatically as the test progresses until it is nearly useless. After the test is done everything is back to normal. The same behavior was observed under 2.2.18.
That's expected: ext2 performs linear searches through the directory, and with 50 000 entries that's very slow.
I'm running a few quick tests, but I don't have a large enough spare partition (~ 1GB?) for a full test.
How much main memory do you have, how large is your raid5 partition?
Could you try to reproduce the problem with fewer files and less main memory?
I'm running your test with 48 MB ram, 12500 files, 9 processes in a 156 MB partition (swapoff, here is the test partition ;-).
With 192MB Ram I don't see the corruption.
--
Manfred
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 8 lines · Manfred Spraul
Quoted 4 lines
Another thing I notice is that the responsiveness of the machine decreases dramatically as the test progresses until it is nearly useless. After the test is done everything is back to normal. The same behavior was observed under 2.2.18.
That's expected: ext2 performs linear searches through the directory, and with 50 000 entries that's very slow.
Would reiserfs be better and does it now work with SW Raid5?
Quoted 5 lines
I'm running a few quick tests, but I don't have a large enough spare partition (~ 1GB?) for a full test.
How much main memory do you have, how large is your raid5 partition?
On the two machines I have tried both have 256 MB of memory and one has a 8GB Raid5 and the other has a 30GB Raid5 partition.
Quoted 3 lines
Could you try to reproduce the problem with fewer files and less main memory?
I will try.
Quoted 4 lines
I'm running your test with 48 MB ram, 12500 files, 9 processes in a 156 MB partition (swapoff, here is the test partition ;-).
With 192MB Ram I don't see the corruption.
I am not sure if I understand you correctly: with 48MB you do get corruption and with 192MB not? And if you do see corruption are you using SW Raid, SMP?
With 10000 I also had no problem, my next step was 50000.
Holger
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 7 lines · Holger Kiehl
Quoted 4 lines
I'm running your test with 48 MB ram, 12500 files, 9 processes in a 156 MB partition (swapoff, here is the test partition ;-).
With 192MB Ram I don't see the corruption.I am not sure if I understand you correctly: with 48MB you do get corruption and with 192MB not? And if you do see corruption are you using SW Raid, SMP?
Sorry for the confusion: The 'mem=48M' test was still running when I wrote the last mail.
I don't see a corruption - neither with 192MB ram nor with 48 MB ram. SMP, no SW Raid, ext2, but only 1024 byte/file and only 12500 files/directory.
Quoted 3 lines
With 10000 I also had no problem, my next step was 50000.
10000 files need ~180MB, that fit's into the cache. 50000 files need ~900MB, that doesn't fit into the cache.
I'd try 10000 files, but now with "mem=64m"
--
Manfred
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 7 lines · Manfred Spraul
I don't see a corruption - neither with 192MB ram nor with 48 MB ram. SMP, no SW Raid, ext2, but only 1024 byte/file and only 12500 files/directory.
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
With 10000 I also had no problem, my next step was 50000.
10000 files need ~180MB, that fit's into the cache. 50000 files need ~900MB, that doesn't fit into the cache.
I'd try 10000 files, but now with "mem=64m"
You are right! I first tried with 20000 files and 256MB and it was ok. Then I tried with 10000 files and "mem=64m" and I get the corruption.
So if I conclude correctly: we both have SMP + ext2 and you do not have SW raid and I do, that its definetly a SW raid bug?
Holger
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 1 line · Holger Kiehl
Would reiserfs be better and does it now work with SW Raid5?
It appears to not work with SW raid5 currently. But I suspect this is the fault of raid5. I got fs corruption too, some files unreadable, odd sizes in the terabyte range for single files, etc. Some of the corruption goes away on reboot, so it is vm related.
Nils
--
*New* *New* *New* - on shellac records
Windows HE - see top 10 reasons to downgrade on
Historical Edition http://www.microsoft.com/windowshe