Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 May 2007 17:31:20 -0400 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, when each disk is 5TB |
| |
Jeff Zheng wrote: > Fix confirmed, filled the whole 11T hard disk, without crashing. > I presume this would go into 2.6.22 > Since it results in a full loss of data, I would hope it goes into 2.6.21.x -stable.
> Thanks again. > > Jeff > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org >> [mailto:linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Zheng >> Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 5:39 p.m. >> To: Neil Brown; david@lang.hm; Michal Piotrowski; Ingo >> Molnar; linux-raid@vger.kernel.org; >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: RE: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, when >> each disk is 5TB >> >> >> Yeah, seems you've locked it down, :D. I've written 600GB of >> data now, and anything is still fine. >> Will let it run overnight, and fill the whole 11T. I'll post >> the result tomorrow >> >> Thanks a lot though. >> >> Jeff >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Neil Brown [mailto:neilb@suse.de] >>> Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 5:31 p.m. >>> To: david@lang.hm; Jeff Zheng; Michal Piotrowski; Ingo Molnar; >>> linux-raid@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; >>> linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org >>> Subject: RE: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, >> when each disk >>> is 5TB >>> >>> On Thursday May 17, neilb@suse.de wrote: >>>> Uhm, I just noticed something. >>>> 'chunk' is unsigned long, and when it gets shifted up, we >>> might lose >>>> bits. That could still happen with the 4*2.75T >> arrangement, but is >>>> much more likely in the 2*5.5T arrangement. >>> Actually, it cannot be a problem with the 4*2.75T arrangement. >>> chuck << chunksize_bits >>> >>> will not exceed the size of the underlying device *in*kilobytes*. >>> In that case that is 0xAE9EC800 which will git in a 32bit long. >>> We don't double it to make sectors until after we add >>> zone->dev_offset, which is "sector_t" and so 64bit >> arithmetic is used. >>> So I'm quite certain this bug will cause exactly the problems >>> experienced!! >>> >>>> Jeff, can you try this patch? >>> Don't bother about the other tests I mentioned, just try this one. >>> Thanks. >>> >>> NeilBrown >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> >>>> >>>> ### Diffstat output >>>> ./drivers/md/raid0.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff .prev/drivers/md/raid0.c ./drivers/md/raid0.c >>>> --- .prev/drivers/md/raid0.c 2007-05-17 >>> 10:33:30.000000000 +1000 >>>> +++ ./drivers/md/raid0.c 2007-05-17 15:02:15.000000000 +1000 >>>> @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ static int raid0_make_request (request_q >>>> x = block >> chunksize_bits; >>>> tmp_dev = zone->dev[sector_div(x, zone->nb_dev)]; >>>> } >>>> - rsect = (((chunk << chunksize_bits) + zone->dev_offset)<<1) >>>> + rsect = ((((sector_t)chunk << chunksize_bits) + >>>> +zone->dev_offset)<<1) >>>> + sect_in_chunk; >>>> >>>> bio->bi_bdev = tmp_dev->bdev; >> - >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe >> linux-raid" in the body of a message to >> majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at >> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
-- Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |