From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754906AbWL1SFq (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:05:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754908AbWL1SFq (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:05:46 -0500 Received: from torres.zugschlus.de ([85.10.211.154]:2975 "EHLO torres.zugschlus.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754896AbWL1SFp (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:05:45 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:05:36 +0100 From: Marc Haber To: Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , Linus Torvalds , andrei.popa@i-neo.ro, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Peter Zijlstra , Hugh Dickins , Florian Weimer , Martin Michlmayr Subject: Re: 2.6.19 file content corruption on ext3 Message-ID: <20061228180536.GB7385@torres.zugschlus.de> References: <1166314399.7018.6.camel@localhost> <20061217040620.91dac272.akpm@osdl.org> <1166362772.8593.2.camel@localhost> <20061217154026.219b294f.akpm@osdl.org> <45861E68.3060403@yahoo.com.au> <20061217214308.62b9021a.akpm@osdl.org> <20061219085149.GA20442@torres.l21.ma.zugschlus.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061219085149.GA20442@torres.l21.ma.zugschlus.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:51:49AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:43:08PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Six hours here of fsx-linux plus high memory pressure on SMP on 1k > > blocksize ext3, mainline. Zero failures. It's unlikely that this testing > > would pass, yet people running normal workloads are able to easily trigger > > failures. I suspect we're looking in the wrong place. > > I do not have a clue about memory management at all, but is it > possible that you're testing on a box with too much memory? My box has > only 256 MB, and I used to use mutt with a _huge_ inbox with mutt > taking somewhat 150 MB. Add spamassassin and a reasonably busy mail > server, and the box used to be like 150 MB in swap. > > I have tidied my inbox in the mean time and mutt's memory requirement > has been reduced to somewhat 30 MB, which might be the cause that I > don't see the issue that often any more. After being up for ten days, I have now encountered the file corruption of pkgcache.bin for the first time again. The 256 MB i386 box is like 26M in swap, is under very moderate load. I am running plain vanilla 2.6.19.1. Is there a patch that I should apply against 2.6.19.1 that would help in debugging? Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835