Re: [9fans] cwfs(4) failing: phase error after recover or suicideafter normal startup - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: [9fans] cwfs(4) failing: phase error after recover or suicideafter normal startup - Plan9 ; bn = addr % h->msize; msize must be zero. - erik...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Re: [9fans] cwfs(4) failing: phase error after recover or suicideafter normal startup

  1. Re: [9fans] cwfs(4) failing: phase error after recover or suicideafter normal startup

    bn = addr % h->msize;

    msize must be zero.

    - erik

  2. Re: [9fans] cwfs(4) failing: phase error after recover or suicideafter normal startup

    that was the first thing i checked. in acid, print(cwio:h) showed
    seemingly useful non-0 numbers. but apparently i wasn't paying very
    close attention: h in cwio is a Cache*, not a Cache, so i needed
    print(*cwio:h). yup, msize is zero.

    geoff's been providing suggestions and thinks that the recover didn't
    actually succeed, so i'm focusing on that case for now. more info as
    it presents.

  3. Re: [9fans] cwfs(4) failing: phase error after recover or suicide

    > that was the first thing i checked. in acid, print(cwio:h) showed
    > seemingly useful non-0 numbers. but apparently i wasn't paying very
    > close attention: h in cwio is a Cache*, not a Cache, so i needed
    > print(*cwio:h). yup, msize is zero.
    >
    > geoff's been providing suggestions and thinks that the recover didn't
    > actually succeed, so i'm focusing on that case for now. more info as
    > it presents.


    that's what i guessed your problem was. (since msize just had to be zero.)

    i would guess that your new fworm is not exactly the same (calculated)
    size as your old worm. i think you can fix this by simply dropping the "f"
    from your device string. this will inhibit the maintence of the bitmap
    at the end of the fake worm.

    anyway, what is the compelling reason to move to cwfs? i have been
    spending a lot of time with it in the last 6 weeks. i've made some substantial
    performance improvements. and i've added aoe.

    - erik



  4. Re: [9fans] cwfs(4) failing: phase error after recover or suicide

    On 9/20/07, erik quanstrom wrote:
    // i would guess that your new fworm is not exactly the same (calculated)
    // size as your old worm.

    the fworm, not the cache? hrm, interesting. it's exactly the same
    disks, but i suppose that could be it. i'll take a look at that and
    how the bitmap is maintained. i'd expect problems there to show up in
    the explicit recover phase (which cwfs's prints say has completed),
    but it's worth a check. dropping the "f" is non-destructive in the
    face of recover?

    i've been looking at auth issues for some of the evening, since it's
    complaining about things related to attach. maybe that's a red
    herring. i'll take a look at the bitmap tomorrow.

    // anyway, what is the compelling reason to move to cwfs?

    it's prompted by something in my fs hardware going funny. i suspect
    it's just the terminator i have to use on the somewhat odd setup in
    that box, but it led to the whole "gee, i'd really like fewer PCs to
    maintain" line of thought. the kenfs is also quite old now, and the
    size reflects that; i'm considering just moving everything on it over
    to venti and putting the box in storage. not to mention a desire to
    reduce my power consumption and noise production.

    i still think the stand-alone fs has its place, but i don't think my
    garage is it.

  5. Re: [9fans] cwfs(4) failing: phase error after recover or suicide

    > the fworm, not the cache? hrm, interesting. it's exactly the same
    > disks, but i suppose that could be it. i'll take a look at that and
    > how the bitmap is maintained. i'd expect problems there to show up in
    > the explicit recover phase (which cwfs's prints say has completed),
    > but it's worth a check. dropping the "f" is non-destructive in the
    > face of recover?


    yes. recover doesn't touch the w part of the device. it just checks the
    block after the last block in each dump to see if it's a sb. if it is it
    loops. if it is not, then you're at the end and the cache is cleared.

    > maintain" line of thought. the kenfs is also quite old now, and the
    > size reflects that; i'm considering just moving everything on it over
    > to venti and putting the box in storage. not to mention a desire to
    > reduce my power consumption and noise production.


    kenfs does run on new hardware. i'm currently running it on an
    intel 5000-series processor and a brand new mb at coraid. it also
    does great with my valinux pIII at home.

    > i still think the stand-alone fs has its place, but i don't think my
    > garage is it.


    electricity: $5/month.
    noise: too much.
    not doing maintence to the fs: priceless. ☺

    - erik


  6. Re: [9fans] cwfs(4) failing: phase error after recover or suicide

    perfect. removing the f from the config did the trick exactly. i've
    got my fs back. i'd still like to understand more why the bitmap is
    wrong on the same disks, but that's for another day now. very much
    thanks.

    i agree having a file server "just run" is worth quite a bit; the
    problem is the hardware in mine no longer fits that description, and
    i'm temporarily budget constrained.

    again, much thanks.
    a

  7. Re: [9fans] cwfs(4) failing: phase error after recover or suicide

    > perfect. removing the f from the config did the trick exactly. i've
    > got my fs back. i'd still like to understand more why the bitmap is
    > wrong on the same disks, but that's for another day now. very much
    > thanks.


    cool..

    the problem is that the calculation of the device size is subject
    to rounding error and if it's one sector off, you're bitmap won't
    be were its supposed to be.

    > i agree having a file server "just run" is worth quite a bit; the
    > problem is the hardware in mine no longer fits that description, and
    > i'm temporarily budget constrained.


    you can get a valinux box on ebay for $100.

    - erik


+ Reply to Thread