Re: still: Re: gbde data corruption?

In message <20030430151514.X27116_at_daneel.foundation.hs>, Heiko Schaefer writes:
>Hi Poul,

>the broken version of the file contains lots of 0-bytes (instead of high
>entropy values in the original file). seems by the output of cmp that
>every damaged value is replaced by 0.

Zero bytes is the absolutely last thing I would expect...

How long are the sequences of zero bytes, and do they start at
sector boundaries ?

Do you also see this on the client ?  (Ie: could it be that data is
still cached on the client and not flushed ?)

What is the approximate error-rate ?  1 file in 10 ? 1 file in 100 ?

How long are the files ?

>zoidberg# diskinfo /dev/ad0s1e
>/dev/ad0s1e     512     29051207680     56740640        56290   16      63
>zoidberg# diskinfo /dev/ad0s1e.bde
>/dev/ad0s1e.bde 4096    28937551872     7064832

This looks ok.

>another thing i just notice: /var/log/messages contains lots of
>
>[...]
>Apr 30 15:24:55 zoidberg kernel: ENOMEM 0xc4c62100 on 0xc45c6c80(ad2s1e.bde)
>Apr 30 15:25:19 zoidberg kernel: ENOMEM 0xc3fa5000 on 0xc45c6c80(ad2s1e.bde)
>Apr 30 15:25:57 zoidberg kernel: ENOMEM 0xc4b46100 on 0xc45c6c80(ad2s1e.bde)
>Apr 30 15:25:57 zoidberg kernel: ENOMEM 0xc4364500 on 0xc45c6c80(ad2s1e.bde)
>[...]

This means that the kernel ran out of ram and the operation was retried,
it should not result in data corruption but it may reorder bio requests
significantly.  I must admit that I have not bashed NFS to see that it
copes.

>i feel that the issue i see is outside the realm of 'should' - so i try to
>give any information i can think of. even useless information :)

Ohh, you're _WAY_ out of "should", you're with your feet deep into
"should certainly NOT", right next to "NEVER EVER!" :-)

>also, i have the unpleasant feeling that i might be making some stupid
>mistake, and waste your time by looking entirely in the wrong direction.
>
>...for all i know the hardware i use on the server-side (or the drivers
>for it ... for some reason the sis-based onboard nic comes to my mind,
>just now) could be subtly broken :/

>if you have no other things i could report or try, i might just throw away
>the gbde volumes and try the same copying with non-gbde partitions, just
>to be sure.

That would be a good first step, but we need to do it controlled to make
sure we know what we prove, so please try it this way:

add 
	option          MALLOC_MAKE_FAILURES
to your kernel.

Build filesystem without GBDE, run test, check for corruption.

if no corruption run:
	sysctl debug.malloc.failure_rate=9013

and then reeuild filesystem without GBDE, run test, check
for corruption.

if you get no corruption in either case GBDE is clearly to
blame, and I get to loose more hair while I chase that bug..


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.