[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081218181249.GD6797@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:12:49 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: Pascal Terjan <pterjan@...driva.com>,
Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@...l.ru>, pterjan@...driva.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible ext3 corruption with 1K block size
Hi Eric,
> Pascal Terjan wrote:
> > Le mercredi 15 octobre 2008 à 09:43 -0500, Eric Sandeen a écrit :
> >> Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 15 October 2008, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>
> >>>> My kingdom for a testcase... does anyone have simple steps to reproduce
> >>>> this? Or do they all start with "install mandriva on a 1k block size
> >>>> system?" :)
> >>>>
> >>> May be RH will do? :)
> >> I did try a 1k-block root fs Fedora install, and didn't see any problems...
> >>
> >>> As indicated by last comment, Pascal has some ways to trigger it; I
> >>> forgot to Cc to him initially; doing it now.
> >> Ok, good deal.
> >>
> >
> > On my test machine I reproduce it easily : rpm --rebuilddb and if the db
> > is not detected to be corrupted yet it will be after installing a few
> > packages (tested again with 2.6.27).
> >
> > If I do the rebuilddb on a 2.6.17 and then reboot on a recent kernel,
> > then I can install/uninstall thousands of packages without any
> > corruption.
>
> so it seems to be the database rebuilding, under a recent kernel, which
> causes the problem? installing under a recent kernel is ok, as long as
> the db was created on an older kernel?
>
> Ok that's a good clue...
Have you been able to track this down? Anything interesting?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SuSE CR Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists