similar to: Assertion failure in journal.c

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 200 matches similar to: "Assertion failure in journal.c"

2001 Mar 12
2
Software RAID & Ext3 v0.0.6b
I've just set up a brand new system with software raid1 (in degraded mode) with one IDE 20GB drive, using kernel 2.2.19pre16 with ext3 0.0.6b. It's split like this.. 32MB /dev/hda1 /boot 2GB /dev/hda2 / ~18GB /dev/hda3 /home all partitions are marked as 0xfd (autostart raid) with the patches from http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches for 2.2.17. And I've made all the ext3
2001 Dec 06
1
2.2.19: Assertion failure in ext3_new_block() at balloc.c line 709
Red Hat 2.2.19-6.2.12 + 0.0.7a + https://listman.redhat.com/pipermail/ext3-users/2001-November/002258.html (not tuned in /proc yet) + journal 4MB on each fs + 6 ext3 fs on raid1 (hda+hdc) + 1 ext3 fs on another disk not on raid1 (hdd) While untarring (tar zxf) a file that was on a ext3/raid1 onto hdd I got: ksymoops 2.3.4 on i686 2.2.19-6.2.12.g1. Options used -V (default) -k
2001 Jul 29
1
2.2.19/0.0.7a: bonnie -> VM problems
SYSTEM: rh6x based system, 2.2.19-6.2.7 rh errata kernel + 0.0.7a patch, I rebuilt rpm for i686; celeron466, 64MB, PIIX4. root fs is on software raid1 ext2, 6 additional fs's on software raid1 ext2. There's a 3rd HD, not mirrored, which is mounted ext3. EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. I enabled journal with tune2fs -j with unmounted fs. The 3 HDs are tuned with
2001 Aug 23
2
EXT3 Trouble on 2.4.4
All, I know that there is no official port to Kernel 2.4.4, thus I may not get any help, however I am hoping someone could point me in the right direction for my problem. I am currently forced to use kernel 2.4.4 for reasons out of my control (embedded board). Here are the exact versions of everything I'm running: ExT3 Version: ext3-2.4-0.9.6-248 Util Version: util-linux-2.11f.tar.bz2 e2fs
2001 Jan 19
2
building ext3 as a module
When trying to build ext3 as a module, I get the follwing errors during the kernel link: /usr/bin/kgcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/home/brian/src/kernel-2.2.19-pre6mvd/linux-2.2.19pre6-kdb-ext3/include -c -o dummy_sym.o dummy_sym.c ld -m elf_i386 -T /home/brian/src/kernel-2.2.19-pre6mvd/linux-2.2.19pre6-kdb-ext3/arch/i386/vmlinux.lds -e stext arch/i386/kernel/head.o arch/i386/kernel/init_t ask.o -Map map
2001 Apr 19
1
0.0.6b conflict with raid patch
Hello all, I am trying to integerate 0.0.6b with our kernel RPM here and have come across an interesting conflict. I want to include the raid patch that Red Hat includes in their kernel but that patch includes the following hunk: --- linux/include/linux/fs.h.orig Tue Jan 16 13:30:09 2001 +++ linux/include/linux/fs.h Tue Jan 16 13:47:18 2001 @@ -191,6 +191,7 @@ #define BH_Req 3 /* 0 if the
2001 May 16
1
Re: [linux-lvm] lvm deadlock with 2.4.x kernel?
I think I have this one solved, I hope. I think what Andreas and I are running into are a few different assertions. One being the LVM lvm_do_pv_flush caused assertion which is related directly to invalidate_buffers() being called which then triggers refile_buffer() on a journaled buffer, which appears clean in all other ways according to the checks in refile_buffer(). The following is what
2001 Jul 13
0
0.0.7a + rh2.2.19: help solve rejects
I get 2 rejects applying 2.2.19-ext3 to latest errata rh 2.2.19 kernel. 1) fs/buffer.c Should I put "J_ASSERT(buf->b_count > 0);" before or after " *(int *)0 = 0;"? ===== ext3 0.0.7a patch --- 934,946 ---- if (buf->b_count) { buf->b_count--; + if (!buf->b_count && + (buf->b_jlist != BJ_None && buf->b_jlist
2005 Sep 09
7
[PATCH 0/6] jbd cleanup
The following 6 patches cleanup the jbd code and kill about 200 lines. First of 4 patches can apply to 2.6.13-git8 and 2.6.13-mm2. The rest of them can apply to 2.6.13-mm2. fs/jbd/checkpoint.c | 179 +++++++++++-------------------------------- fs/jbd/commit.c | 101 ++++++++++-------------- fs/jbd/journal.c | 11 +- fs/jbd/revoke.c | 158
2006 Feb 18
1
kernel panic: Assertion failure in __journal_unfile_buffer()
I was just extracting a 96MB tar file ( tar -xWf backup.tar ), the cpu load was 99% for a long time. I then stopped it and tried again, but this time this popped up in my ssh session: -- Message from syslogd at rock at Sat Feb 18 00:47:05 2006 ... rock kernel: Assertion failure in __journal_unfile_buffer() at fs/jbd/transaction.c:1520: "jh->b_jlist < 9" -- A kernel panic dump is
2002 Jun 29
1
ext3 related problem?
Jun 29 11:30:05 ns kernel: Assertion failure in __journal_file_buffer() at transaction.c:1935: "jh->b_jlist < 9" Jun 29 11:30:05 ns kernel: invalid operand: 0000 Jun 29 11:30:05 ns kernel: CPU: 0 Jun 29 11:30:05 ns kernel: EIP: 0010:[__journal_file_buffer+54/400] Not tainted Jun 29 11:30:05 ns kernel: EFLAGS: 00010282 Jun 29 11:30:05 ns kernel: eax: 00000059 ebx:
2001 Jun 03
3
making 0.0.6b a module
I have ext3 0.0.6b + 2.2.19 and cannot get ext3 to compile as a module. If I try to modularize it, or turn in off completely, the kernel build fails. Is there an easy fix for this, or is there something that I am missing? Thanks. Peter
2005 May 06
3
CentOS Convert Question
Hi, First, I want to say that I have fallen in love with CentOS4. I have been using RedHat since the 5.x days. After RedHat dropped the stable system to go to a unstable system and a Enterprise system I felt like I was being left out in the cold. I quickly found out about WhiteBox and used it for quite a while. Then I learned about CentOS...and switched to it for my server needs. I have
2001 Jul 30
1
ext3-0.9.5-247/2.4.8-pre3/PPC Oops bits
Okay, after playing around a bit more, I'm getting two oopes in a row when running dbench 16 or dbench 32. Decoded, here they are: Assertion failure in unmap_underlying_metadata() at buffer.c:1530: "!buffer_jlist_eq(old_bh, 3)" kernel BUG at buffer.c:1530! Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 4 NIP: C003BB34 XER: 00000000 LR: C003BB34 SP: CF881E00 REGS: cf881d50 TRAP: 0700 Using
2001 Feb 08
1
Ext3 & InterMezzo issue
Hi Stephen, We had some starvation/locks happening to us under very heavy load in two cases: - InterMezzo asked ext3 to do a journaled file write (for 1 block) essentially using ext3_write - similarly for truncate. These lockups went away when we started the transaction in InterMezzo and reserved somewhat more space than ext3 does. Any clues as to what this might be? Are the ext3
2003 Dec 02
2
Reading transction log
I need to maintain a log that contains information on files that are read / modified . I was suggested losf, but using lsof does not solve the problem as files opened/closed between two successive runs will always be missed. With reference to the stated need I have 2 Questions. 1) can data in the journal file be of any help to me ? if yes how, ? 2) can kjournald be used in some way ?
2002 Oct 16
2
to compare journalised file systems with Linux.
Lo, Actualy i'm looking for documents about journalised file system, in order to be able to compare them self. I need accurate information if i want to make a good study. Thoses informations have to permit me to get answer about table like this : Features \ fs | xfs | ext3 | jfs | reiserfs | ------------------------------------------------- chattr | ? | Y | ? | ?
2001 Apr 01
3
Which are the steps to apply a Ext3 file system?
Im intending use Ext3 file system in my web farm. Im using RedHat 6.2 (kernel 2.2.16-3) and Turbo Linux Cluster Server 6.0. I have NO SUCCESS in path my own kernel. I downloaded the following ext3 packages: ext3-0.0.2f.tar.gz (linux-2.2.16-3.kdb.diff , linux-2.2.16-3.ext3.diff ) e2fsprogs-1.20-0.WIP.i386.rpm e2fsprogs-1.20-0.WIP.src.rpm e2fsprogs-1.20-0ext3.i386.rpm
2003 Jun 25
0
Bug in ext3=journal ?
Hi all! While I was having some fun, testing different filesystems at home and making some benchmarks, I hit a bug when running Postmark in an ext3 partition mounted with data=journal. I repeated this test twice and got the same results under Linux 2.5, also it was not found while mounting with data=writeback or data=ordered or under Linux 2.4. I don't know if it's a know problem or
2001 Oct 10
1
ordered data
Hi, I have a detailed question about ordered data writes. Suppose we (i.e. intermezzo) does a transaction, which is closed and then followed by an ordered write. Let's assume the ordered write doesn't require new allocation metadata. Is the write still postponed until the first transaction has committed? As far as I can see, prepare_write always starts a transaction, but I'm