[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51549D74.1060703@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:43:48 -0400
From: Jeff Darcy <jdarcy@...hat.com>
To: Anand Avati <anand.avati@...il.com>
CC: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>,
Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...m.fraunhofer.de>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, gluster-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] regressions due to 64-bit ext4 directory cookies
On 03/28/2013 02:49 PM, Anand Avati wrote:
> Yes, it should, based on the theory of how ext4 was generating the
> 63bits. But Jeff's test finds that the experiment is not matching the
> theory.
FWIW, I was able to re-run my test in between stuff related to That
Other Problem. What seems to be happening is that we read correctly
until just after d_off 0x4000000000000000, then we suddenly wrap around
- not to the very first d_off we saw, but to a pretty early one (e.g.
0x0041b6340689a32e). This is all on a single brick, BTW, so it's pretty
easy to line up the back-end and front-end d_off values which match
perfectly up to this point.
I haven't had a chance to ponder what this all means and debug it
further. Hopefully I'll be able to do so soon, but I figured I'd
mention it in case something about those numbers rang a bell.
--
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