UFS2 corruption (RELENG_7, amd64)

[Julian H. Stacey]

Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Chris Dillon wrote:
>  > Oliver Fromme wrote:
>  > ...snip...
>  > 
>  > > # fsck -y /dev/da45
>  > > ** /dev/da45
>  > > ** Last Mounted on [...]
>  > > ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
>  > > ** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames
>  > > UNALLOCATED  I=2107428  OWNER=2283830233 MODE=0
>  > > SIZE=0 MTIME=Feb  5 08:43 2008
>  > > NAME=/D.0131ae2e/B.0786
>  > > 
>  > > UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
>  > > 
>  > > REMOVE? yes
>  > 
>  > I've been seeing "UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY" fsck errors  
>  > show up in some of my filesytem snapshots on a RELENG_6 AMD64 box for  
>  > years (actually since RELENG_5), which will eventually lead to "panic:  
>  > snapblkfree: inconsistent block type" if those snapshots are mounted  
>  > and used.
> 
> We do not use snapshots, and we don't see such panics.
> So this is probably unrelated.
> 
> Best regards
>    Oliver

I've never enabled snapshots either, but was suprised to find one
recently! Though I recall it had been around a long while, it was
also certainly bigger than the physical disk it was on, (presumably
a sparse file). I just deleted it, & guessed some flag or
config file presence/ absence/ corruption etc had somehow
triggered it. (No one else would have enabled snapshots on it).

As it had hung, crashed or been troublesome lately, I did a
foreground fsck rather background, & I think a 2nd fsck -y straight
after 1st, which I think fixed some more, (sometimes does).

Maybe schedule an outage, take off line & single user { foreground
fsck, & repeat till you get a clean run where it fixes nothing  ||
backup & newfs }.  Good luck!

Julian
-- 
Julian Stacey: BSDUnixLinux C Prog Admin SysEng Consult Munich www.berklix.com