View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Utoxin Guru
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 Posts: 413 Location: American Fork, UT
|
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2002 9:30 pm Post subject: 'cp' keeps getting stuck... |
|
|
Several times in the last couple days, when copying things as root, the cp process has hung, and the process refuses to die, even when killed with a -9. Eventually, the process dies on it's own, but it takes forever.
My filesystem is XFS, and I'm running with gcc3.1. Anyone have any ideas? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pjp Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20067
|
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2002 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What are you trying to copy... how large are the files? _________________ Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lx Veteran
Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 1012 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2002 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well that's one of the reasons I stopped using XFS. Used it on some partitions, and I found out that copying a large file (670Mb), from one partition to another hung the system/cp. Well didn't really fix it, just dumped it for ReiserFS.
Good Luck, lX _________________ "Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over.", Frank Zappa |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Utoxin Guru
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 Posts: 413 Location: American Fork, UT
|
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2002 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the one today is only 21 megs, and the copy process has used up half an hour of processor time so far. Total, it's been running for an hour. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lx Veteran
Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 1012 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2002 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Utoxin wrote: | Well, the one today is only 21 megs, and the copy process has used up half an hour of processor time so far. Total, it's been running for an hour. |
Well I wasn't that patient (xfs was probably in a loop) I just did CTRL+C and did another cp and it worked. I concluded to dump Xfs.
Cya lX. _________________ "Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over.", Frank Zappa |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Utoxin Guru
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 Posts: 413 Location: American Fork, UT
|
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2002 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd do that, but I've got too much time invested in this system to rebuild it.
Anyone have any ideas why this happens, or how to fix it? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
klieber Bodhisattva
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 Posts: 3657 Location: San Francisco, CA
|
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2002 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You say it hangs when copying stuff as root. Does it work fine when copying stuff as a normal user?
Also, I seriously doubt this is the problem, but make sure you have DMA enabled on the device. (hdparm -d /dev/<your partition>)
--kurt _________________ The problem with political jokes is that they get elected |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Utoxin Guru
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 Posts: 413 Location: American Fork, UT
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
klieber wrote: | You say it hangs when copying stuff as root. Does it work fine when copying stuff as a normal user?
Also, I seriously doubt this is the problem, but make sure you have DMA enabled on the device. (hdparm -d /dev/<your partition>)
--kurt |
So far, I haven't seen it hang while running as a normal user.
And yes, DMA is enabled. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Utoxin Guru
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 Posts: 413 Location: American Fork, UT
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I eventually got the thread to die, and started the gcc emerge again (It's what was running when it locked up last.) And lo-and-behold, it locked up on exactly the same file copy the second time. This to me sounds like a bug of somekind in XFS itself. Where would I go to report XFS bugs? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pjp Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20067
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is it just this one file? Can you try another file of similar size and see if it locks up?
May sound weird, but I had a file one time that crashed a Novell file server whenever
I tried to open it. At the time, we didn't know this, but it was eventually discovered
that it was this one file. After recreating the file with essentially the same contents,
the problem never reoccurred. _________________ Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jtanner Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 23 May 2002 Posts: 121 Location: Atlanta, GA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just to make sure: Neither the source nor destination is on a network mounted filesystem (nfs, samba, etc) or on removable media, right?
Jim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Utoxin Guru
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 Posts: 413 Location: American Fork, UT
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I let it run this time, and it eventually made it through that file. And one of the next files was twice that size, and it's hanging there too. So it's something to do with large files. (Where large seems to mean >~20MB)
And no, it's not over the network or anything. It's all on the same hard disk. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jtanner Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 23 May 2002 Posts: 121 Location: Atlanta, GA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Darn, I thought this was going to be easy!
How full is your disk? Any issues/info with XFS and GCC 3.1?
Well, when kill -9 fails to destroy a process, it's because it's blocking in the kernel (duh). Could this be a tunable parameter in XFS? I've never used it, but I seem to remember reading that there are a bunch of tunable parameters that can make a big difference performance-wise.
Isn't XFS supposed to be GOOD with large files?
Jim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Utoxin Guru
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 Posts: 413 Location: American Fork, UT
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disk has gigs and gigs of space left.
There's no specific issues with GCC3.1, but they did say they didn't gauruntee it to work. I'm beginning to suspect that's at the root of the problem.
And there's not much on XFS in the kernel config. Mostly quota stuff. Which I have turned off. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pjp Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20067
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I recall an fstab setting we used for Solaris that was related to large files, but I don't recall what it was. Any one know if this could be similar? _________________ Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jtanner Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 23 May 2002 Posts: 121 Location: Atlanta, GA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know this sucks, but....maybe try to recompile with GCC 2.95.3, and see what happens. You would just have to recompile the kernel and the tools, right?
Jim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Utoxin Guru
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 Posts: 413 Location: American Fork, UT
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd also have to compile gcc 2.95. Wanna guess how long that'd take in my system's current condition? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jtanner Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 23 May 2002 Posts: 121 Location: Atlanta, GA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ummm....no.
Precompiled binaries, maybe? Besides, it beats having to reformat your drive...
If you have a spare disk sitting around, maybe set that up as ext2/3 and use it to build the compiler, at least.
Jim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Utoxin Guru
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 Posts: 413 Location: American Fork, UT
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I finally finished the upgrade to the latest gcc3, and did an mrproper compile of my kernel, and things seem to have improved. I'll let everyone know if I have any more problems. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lx Veteran
Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 1012 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember having the same problems with Xfs (as I stated in the earlier post) also I got error with the preempt patch + xfs. Some pre-empt count wasn't zero after finishing some command (cp / something else), so I just dumped it, that's the kind of guy I am..... . Well I want a stable and reliable filesystem, not even one cp instruction may hang..... Are you getting the pre-empt count error.
Cya lX. _________________ "Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over.", Frank Zappa |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Utoxin Guru
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 Posts: 413 Location: American Fork, UT
|
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2002 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Preempt count is /rarely/ 0. It's not an error. It just means the kernel let something else take over the processor while it was running. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mark Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 04 Jun 2002 Posts: 119
|
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2002 2:14 pm Post subject: I had probs with cp -p and xfs |
|
|
Its probably not related but you never know. When I had ACL in my use variables and compiled fileutils I would subsequently get error messages with cp -p. This has been reported to xfs who are putting some changes in cvs. They are also liasing with fileutils maintainers and the maintainers of a gentoo fileutils patch to try to find the route cause.
If your not using acl's you could see if use=ACL is set and disable it if it is. Then re emerge fileutils. I am not running gcc3 and my symptoms werent the same but it could be worth a try.
Mark _________________ Regards
Mark |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|