panic: handle_written_inodeblock: bad size

[Mikhail T.]

19.07.2010 07:31, Jeremy Chadwick написав(ла):
> If you boot the machine in single-user, and run fsck manually, are there
> any errors?
>    
Thanks, Jeremy... I wish, there was a way to learn, /which/ file-system 
is giving trouble... However, after sending the question out last night, 
I tried to pkg_delete a package on the machine, and was very lucky to 
see a file-system error (inode something or other) before the panic 
struck. That, at least, told me, which file-system was in trouble 
(/var). I dump-ed it out, re-created, and then restored it... Although 
dumping went smooth, there were two errors at which restore offered to 
abort. I told it not to and got (most of the) file-system restored. (The 
dump is available to anyone wishing to investigate -- contact me 
privately. I'm not posting it publicly because of the passwd-file backup 
under /var).

So far seems quiet -- no panics for two more hours before I went to bed.
> Only thing I can think of off the top of my head: there's a known
> situation (also applies to RELENG_7) where a background fsck doesn't
> correct all errors after a system crash/unclean shutdown.  I mention
> this because I see "softdep" in the above stack trace (usually refers to
> softupdates).  I don't know if this got fixed, but the workaround is to
> use background_fsck="no" in rc.conf.  Yes, after a crash this means you
> have to wait for the entire fsck to run.
>    
When setting up my main machine 4 years ago, I turned off background 
fsck... But I thought, things have improved sufficiently enough since 
then :-( Maybe, background fsck should still be disabled by default?

And, IMO, at the very least, *any panic related to a file-system must 
clearly identify the file-system in question*... What do you think?

Yours,

    -mi