Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Has anybody tried ext4?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Unsupported Software
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
octoploid
n00b
n00b


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fldc2 wrote:
The only problem i've had with ext4 so far is that the torrents i download get lots of failed chunks for some reason, no matter what client is used, my workaround at this time is to download on a partition with a different filesystem :)


It happened here also today.
We should let the developers know about this.
It's a serious bug.
_________________
Myself and mine gymnastic ever
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devsk
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 2870
Location: Bay Area, CA

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fldc2 wrote:
The only problem i've had with ext4 so far is that the torrents i download get lots of failed chunks for some reason, no matter what client is used, my workaround at this time is to download on a partition with a different filesystem :)
this means a bug with sparse file handling. You should file a bug.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
octoploid
n00b
n00b


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've filed a bug report. We will see what happens.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/9765
_________________
Myself and mine gymnastic ever


Last edited by octoploid on Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devsk
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 2870
Location: Bay Area, CA

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alas, this ext4 dream is not going far. This thing is flakier than reiser4...:(

Code:
[ 2573.228125] EXT4-fs error (device dm-7): ext4_mb_generate_buddy: EXT4-fs: group 4: 16384 blocks in bitmap, 1628 in gd
....
[ 2573.585667] EXT4-fs error (device dm-7): mb_free_blocks: double-free of inode 0's block 361974(bit 1526 in group 11)
I got ~90000 of those errors on portage tree partition with just couple of syncs.

This is what fsck is cribbing about:
Code:
# time fsck /dev/mapper/nvidia_fajcdbfa9
fsck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
e2fsck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
Superblock has an invalid ext3 journal (inode 8).
Clear<y>? yes

*** ext3 journal has been deleted - filesystem is now ext2 only ***

Resize inode not valid.  Recreate<y>? yes

portage contains a file system with errors, check forced.
fsck.ext4: Illegal triply indirect block found while reading bad blocks inode
This doesn't bode well, but we'll try to go on...
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Bad block inode has illegal block(s).  Clear<y>? yes

Illegal block #0 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #1 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #2 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #3 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #4 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #5 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #6 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #7 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #8 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #9 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #10 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #11 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #-1 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #-2 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Illegal block #-3 (909522486) in bad block inode.  CLEARED.
Root inode is not a directory.  Clear<y>? yes

Reserved inode 3 (<The ACL index inode>) has invalid mode.  Clear<y>? yes

Inode 3 has compression flag set on filesystem without compression support.  Clear<y>? yes

Inode 3 has INDEX_FL flag set but is not a directory.
Clear HTree index<y>? yes

Inode 3, i_size is 3906369333256140342, should be 0.  Fix<y>? yes

Inode 3, i_blocks is 59606465656374, should be 0.  Fix<y>? yes

Reserved inode 4 (<The ACL data inode>) has invalid mode.  Clear<y>?

Recreate journal to make the filesystem ext3 again?
Fix<y>? cancelled!

portage: e2fsck canceled.

portage: ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****

portage: ********** WARNING: Filesystem still has errors **********

fsck.ext4: Inode bitmap not loaded while setting block group checksum info
I ctrl-c'ed it at that because it was just too many questions. I needed to pass -y but still its not something that had any good data in it.

What's up with that? Did anyone see any of these?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
a.b.
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 218
Location: Anus Mundi, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm using ext4 right now, no problems so far. I just should have considered:
  • I have no Live CD with Ext4 support. Neither do I have a CD writer
  • There are now Windows drivers for Ext4 yet

Too bad :roll:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devsk
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 2870
Location: Bay Area, CA

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

a.b. wrote:
  • I have no Live CD with Ext4 support. Neither do I have a CD writer
good point! But these will come along.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asturm
Developer
Developer


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 7113
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is bad news... I don't get any errors so far, but I'm glad that I've still got my backup.
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Schwinni
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 214
Location: quadrant1.earth. germany.wuerzburg

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One question to the ppl with problems:

Do you use kernel 2.6.27 or 2.6.28?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devsk
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 2870
Location: Bay Area, CA

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Schwinni wrote:
One question to the ppl with problems:

Do you use kernel 2.6.27 or 2.6.28?
I am using the patches mentioned so far on top of vanilla 2.6.27.4.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asturm
Developer
Developer


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 7113
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In case some of you need it: Build a customized SystemRescueCd with your own kernel

Might be best with systemrescuecd-1.1.1-rc1 which already incorporates >=e2fsprogs-1.41 but is still using kernel 2.6.26 without further mentioning ext4 - so I assume an unpatched ext4dev.
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devsk
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 2870
Location: Bay Area, CA

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Code:
[53584.930845] JBD: barrier-based sync failed on md1:8 - disabling barriers
Is that a MD (soft raid) and DM (fake raid) device issue or do people see it on single device partitions as well? Not seen that with ext3 on MD or DM devices.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
octoploid
n00b
n00b


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

devsk wrote:
Code:
[53584.930845] JBD: barrier-based sync failed on md1:8 - disabling barriers
Is that a MD (soft raid) and DM (fake raid) device issue or do people see it on single device partitions as well? Not seen that with ext3 on MD or DM devices.


Yes, it's a DM issue. DM unfortunately cannot handle barriers (it just ignores them,
instead of passing them to the underlying harddrives).
I use barrier=0 for my dmcrypt partitions.
There are no problems with single partitions, if your harddrive supports barriers.
_________________
Myself and mine gymnastic ever
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devsk
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 2870
Location: Bay Area, CA

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

octoploid wrote:
devsk wrote:
Code:
[53584.930845] JBD: barrier-based sync failed on md1:8 - disabling barriers
Is that a MD (soft raid) and DM (fake raid) device issue or do people see it on single device partitions as well? Not seen that with ext3 on MD or DM devices.


Yes, it's a DM issue. DM unfortunately cannot handle barriers (it just ignores them,
instead of passing them to the underlying harddrives).
I use barrier=0 for my dmcrypt partitions.
There are no problems with single partitions, if your harddrive supports barriers.
But I never seen that on ext3 partitions that I have DMRAID.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tgR10
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Posts: 262
Location: caly ten ambaras

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i use ext4 on my / just my /home is on different filesystem ... got it working since Tue Oct 28 18:10:30 EDT 2008, my pc is turned on 24/24 so far no problems :-) i did a lot of sync's updates -e world's no problemo with anythin so far so good :P
_________________
"bo kto ma racje ? ten kto z bliska zobaczy"
"moge nie wiedziec,wchlaniam niewiedze z malych torebek"
http://i12.tinypic.com/4pow0mu.png
http://userbar.tgr.debil.eu/userbar.jpg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
octoploid
n00b
n00b


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

devsk wrote:
octoploid wrote:
devsk wrote:
Code:
[53584.930845] JBD: barrier-based sync failed on md1:8 - disabling barriers
Is that a MD (soft raid) and DM (fake raid) device issue or do people see it on single device partitions as well? Not seen that with ext3 on MD or DM devices.


Yes, it's a DM issue. DM unfortunately cannot handle barriers (it just ignores them,
instead of passing them to the underlying harddrives).
I use barrier=0 for my dmcrypt partitions.
There are no problems with single partitions, if your harddrive supports barriers.
But I never seen that on ext3 partitions that I have DMRAID.


barrier=0 is the default setting for ext3...
_________________
Myself and mine gymnastic ever
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
octoploid
n00b
n00b


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The mmap corruption bug is fixed. The patch will be in Linus' tree shortly.
See: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git;a=commitdiff;h=ed9b3e3379731e9f9d2f73f3d7fd9e7d2ce3df4a;hp=ac51d83705c2a38c71f39cde99708b14e6212a60
_________________
Myself and mine gymnastic ever
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asturm
Developer
Developer


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 7113
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ext4 benchmarks...
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kernelOfTruth
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 6108
Location: Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

genstorm wrote:
ext4 benchmarks...


they're not fair, reiserfs at least needs to be tested without tails support - none of the others support it => notail :!:

and how about space efficiency / efficiency of usage ? :idea:
_________________
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/ZFS-for-SystemRescueCD/tree/ZFS-for-SysRescCD-4.9.0
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/pulseaudio-equalizer-ladspa

Hardcore Gentoo Linux user since 2004 :D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asturm
Developer
Developer


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 7113
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh noes! It's so unfair!

There never is a perfect, complete and ultimately fair benchmark. This one is about default settings for standard users, and its main function is to show the difference to ext3.
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kernelOfTruth
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 6108
Location: Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

genstorm wrote:
Oh noes! It's so unfair!

There never is a perfect, complete and ultimately fair benchmark. This one is about default settings for standard users, and its main function is to show the difference to ext3.


yeah, let's just forget about the other filesystems and the tweaks no one needs them anyway

ext4 FTW :wink:

the point which strikes me the most is the comparison of disk efficiency - leave out all of the other factors cause this one is the most important
for those people with elder harddrives and/or limited space

no one needs 5 or 10% of reserved space and/or bad space utilization with abysmal performance if there are filesystems which can do better than that (compression anyone ?) :roll:


I'll take a look at it if I've upgraded my harddrives to a higher capacity since its worse space utilization unfortunately prevents me now from doing so

genstorm, have you recently noticed any bugs meanwhile during use ?
_________________
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/ZFS-for-SystemRescueCD/tree/ZFS-for-SysRescCD-4.9.0
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/pulseaudio-equalizer-ladspa

Hardcore Gentoo Linux user since 2004 :D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asturm
Developer
Developer


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 7113
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then maybe these benchmarks aren't what people with older hardware and limited space are searching for. I'm not one of them (old HDDs make me paranoid of data loss), but I also never claimed those benchmarks to be "the truth". Those, as all benchmarks, just tell us that hardware A, B, C, D under circumstances X without considering specialties Y and Z seem to perform according to those numbers. ;)

I haven't noticed any bugs, having dropped ext2 and ext3 completely from the system - I do use reiserfs though for the most of the system, ext4 being my storage FS for mostly large files.

PS: The biggest speedup still is faster hardware. Velociraptor ftw! ;)
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Unsupported Software All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum