panic: handle_written_inodeblock: live inodedep
dwhite at gumbysoft.com
Mon Jan 19 09:01:24 PST 2004
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, sebastian ssmoller wrote:
> > I believe the report was that it happened if you performed a large I/O
> > operation just after booting with a dirty filesystem, so it was running
> > concurrently with bgfsck.
> this could be a point - when i got that panic i had one before (hardware
> compatibility problems with geforce2, via kt 133 and amd) and i booted
> with a dirty fs (of course running bgfsck).
> in this situation i started portupgrade (ok possible not a good idea :)
Looks like I have something to test. If you do this regularly and don't
mind waiting, you can disable background fsck via a rc.conf option.
> > It might be repeatable with a generic snapshot.
> i am not sure whether i want to "repeat" it with my system - i could
> cause data loss, couldnt it ?
Potentially, but my theory was to create a junk filessytem on a test
machine, dump /usr/ports on it, take a snapshot, then do somethign else
nasty to that FS, like copy another /usr/ports tree onto it. Its also
possible that its some sort of conflict between the fack doing an update
and the I/O touching the same file or something. More experimentation is
Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve
dwhite at gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org
More information about the freebsd-current