Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 01:56:25PM +0100, Walter Haidinger wrote: > Hi! > > I just noticed the following after upgrading a simple cluster > to drbd-8.3.10 in the kernel logs. Upgrading from what DRBD version? Any crash or reset in between? Volatile caches involved? When did you last do "create-md"? > drbd: GIT-hash: 5c0b0469666682443d4785d90a2c603378f9017b build by @build.k9, 2011-02-07 12:14:11 > drbd: registered as block device major 147 > drbd: minor_table @ 0xffff880207843680 > block drbd0: Starting worker thread (from cqueue [5544]) > block drbd0: disk( Diskless -> Attaching ) > block drbd0: ASSERT( from_tnr - cnr + i - from == mx+1 ) in /kernel/drbd/drbd-8.3.10/drbd/drbd_actlog.c:514 > block drbd0: ASSERT FAILED: drbd_al_read_log: (rv == 0) in /kernel/drbd/drbd-8.3.10/drbd/drbd_actlog.c:540 > ... [ASSERT FAILED repeated 39 times in total] > block drbd0: Found 18 transactions (1031 active extents) in activity log. > block drbd0: Method to ensure write ordering: drain > block drbd0: max BIO size = 130560 > block drbd0: drbd_bm_resize called with capacity == 1555043584 > block drbd0: resync bitmap: bits=194380448 words=3037195 pages=5933 > block drbd0: size = 742 GB (777521792 KB) > block drbd0: bitmap READ of 5933 pages took 20 jiffies > block drbd0: recounting of set bits took additional 1 jiffies > block drbd0: 0 KB (0 bits) marked out-of-sync by on disk bit-map. > block drbd0: disk( Attaching -> UpToDate ) > ... > > The machine was just upgraded to 2.6.35.11 too, is currently the inactive node. > The active node still runs drbd 8.3.9. > > version: 8.3.10 (api:88/proto:86-96) > GIT-hash: 5c0b0469666682443d4785d90a2c603378f9017b build by @build.k9, 2011-02-07 12:14:11 > 0: cs:Connected ro:Secondary/Primary ds:UpToDate/UpToDate C r----- > ns:0 nr:2051256 dw:2051076 dr:0 al:0 bm:169 lo:45 pe:0 ua:46 ap:0 ep:1 wo:d oos:0 > resync: used:0/61 hits:4959 misses:286 starving:0 dirty:0 changed:286 > act_log: used:0/3389 hits:0 misses:0 starving:0 dirty:0 changed:0 > > Operation is fine, though. I do not notice any other problems apart from the > disturbing asserts logged above. > > Still, something to worry about? If that's a one-time event, than I'd say strange, but so what. If it happens more often during attach, then that would be something worth investigating further. I still suggest to run an online verify just in case, as these asserts could under certain circumstances indicate that there may have been a resync that could have been resyncing less than actually necessary. [that's intentionally vague ;-)] -- : Lars Ellenberg : LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability : DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria. __ please don't Cc me, but send to list -- I'm subscribed