In the last month - definitely after going to 5.5 - I've tried to fsck a
drive (340 days, or some such, unchecked). 960G RAID 5, I *think*,
possibly serial port attachment to a JetStore RAID array. Every time I
try, it gets to 70.0%, and stops. As in, I left it run last night, having
started it late afternoon, and around 23:00, it was still exactly there,
not even .1% more. On that, I also had a -dd flag, since running it the
other day with a -d gave me nothing at all of debugging info; neither did
the dd.
Note that my manager tried to run one on another server, also attached to
a JetStore, and it also stopped at the exact same point. This has never
happened before, and fsck has handled these in the past.
Anyone seen anything like this, and/or have ideas as to what I can do to
fsck to at least *tell* me why it was gagging?
mark
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:57 PM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote:> Note that my manager tried to run one on another server, also attached to > a JetStore, and it also stopped at the exact same point. This has never > happened before, and fsck has handled these in the past. > > Anyone seen anything like this, and/or have ideas as to what I can do to > fsck to at least *tell* me why it was gagging?Hmm.. my fsck uses 'V' rather than 'dd' for verbose.. Maybe try attaching with strace to see if it's still doing anything??
On 07/20/2010 10:57 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:> In the last month - definitely after going to 5.5 - I've tried to fsck a > drive (340 days, or some such, unchecked). 960G RAID 5, I *think*, > possibly serial port attachment to a JetStore RAID array. Every time I > try, it gets to 70.0%, and stops. As in, I left it run last night, having > started it late afternoon, and around 23:00, it was still exactly there, > not even .1% more. On that, I also had a -dd flag, since running it the > other day with a -d gave me nothing at all of debugging info; neither did > the dd. >I've seen e2fsck hang on large arrays (terabyte range) before, particularly if you have lots of hard links. It's a bug in fsck. http://www.redhat.com/archives/ext3-users/2007-March/msg00016.html -- Benjamin Franz