Re: XFS vs. ext3

[Andrew Klaassen <ak dkp com>]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 03:34:15PM -0500,
John Stoffel wrote:

> >> The application reported errors like so:
> >> 
> >> info: rendering frame 5
> >> info: frame 5 rendered in 30.485s
> >> info: rendering frame 6
> >> error: //N/N/fred1/stress/out.0005.cin: Invalid argument
> 
> Andrew> Note: At this point, there'd be a partially-written frame on the
> Andrew> server.
> 
> Well, the obvious questions are:

I can answer a few of these now; hopefully all of them later.

> 1. How big is the file,

The partially written files are some (apparently random) size
less than 49186816 bytes.

>    and how is it corrupted?

I suspect it is merely truncated, though I am not sure.  I will
check this.

>    Does Shake keep the file around, or does it delete it when
>    done?

It leaves the partially-written file in place.

> 2. Have you talked with the Shake developers to get them to
>    tell you what the errors are or could be?

No; I don't believe that we are currently under support.

>    To me it looks to be an application error of some sort, but
>    obviously it could be anything.
> 
> 3. Are there any messages on the Samba server side logs?  

I will check this.

> 4. How big are the files on average,

They are all precisely 49186816 bytes.

>    and how are they stored in terms of directory structure? 
>    Are they all in one directory, or does each client get it's
>    own directory?

All in one big directory.

> 5. Can you repeat the error by just having some program on the
>    NT box (such a windows explorer) copy an equivilent number
>    of same sized files to the Sambad server and see what
>    happens?  Let's try to get Shake out of the equation here
>    if we can.

That's exactly what I was thinking of trying next (since having
to come in on the weekend to use Shake - we only have 4 licenses
- is a little irritating.)

> 6. What version of Samba are you running on the server?

2.2.1a-4.

> Basically, I think we need a bunch more info before we can
> figure out anything.  I personally lean towards an
> application/samba interaction, but I could be completely
> wrong.

That's entirely possible; however, using ext3 rather than XFS
causes the problems to become apparent.

Andrew Klaassen