Re: reiserfs on software raid on sparc/2.4.18 ?
bath66 said:
> Hello,
>
> If your arch is Sparc32, it's advised of use a 2.2.x kernel ... Try that
> solution ....
I suppose it's hopeless to get software raid running ..
Running an ultra 1(creator 3D, not sure what model), tried both 2.4.18
and 2.4.19(both source tree's from debian's archive), tried both
reiserfs and ext3, suppose I could try ext2 but expect it to do the
same -->
sparky:~# mount /dev/md0 /var.new
data_access_exception: SFSR[0000000000801009] SFAR[fffff8001d6234fc], going.
\|/ ____ \|/
"@'/ .. \`@"
/_| \__/ |_\
\__U_/
mount(228): Dax
TSTATE: 0000004411009607 TPC: 000000000058d63c TNPC: 000000000058d640 Y:
07000000 Not tainted
g0: fffff8000fb3f460 g1: fffff8000f772818 g2: 0000000000000001 g3:
fffffffffffffff2
g4: fffff80000000000 g5: fffee0000deb0d00 g6: fffff8000fb3c000 g7:
000000000000001c
o0: 0000000000000002 o1: fffff8000f77281c o2: fffff8000fcfe5c0 o3:
fffff8000062f940
o4: 0000000000000002 o5: 0000000000000001 sp: fffff8000fb3ec61 ret_pc:
fffff8000f772820
l0: fffff8000f772800 l1: fffff8000f772c48 l2: 000000000065dc00 l3:
0000000000000002
l4: 0000000000654830 l5: 00000000effffc1c l6: 00000000effffc18 l7:
0000000000000000
i0: 000000000000000e i1: fffee0000deb0cdc i2: 0000000000000000 i3:
0000000000000000
i4: 0000000000000002 i5: fffff8000f772800 i6: fffff8000fb3ed21 i7:
000000000058d820
Caller[000000000058d820]
Caller[000000000058fb80]
Caller[000000000053b450]
Caller[000000000053b54c]
Caller[000000000053b730]
Caller[000000000046185c]
Caller[00000000004902d0]
Caller[0000000000465070]
Caller[000000000046530c]
Caller[0000000000478c8c]
Caller[0000000000478fc8]
Caller[0000000000429a48]
Caller[0000000000410674]
Caller[000000000001288c]
Instruction DUMP: f84763d8 b2067fdc 84073fff <c606400f> 80a0e000
12480013 b938a000 c4064009 80a0a000
Killed
Linux sparky 2.4.19 #1 Wed May 28 19:39:52 PDT 2003 sparc64 unknown
(debian woody)
not sure what the problem could be, when I installed debian I told it
to do a badblocks check and it came back with 0 errors so maybe it's
just a kernel bug ........
guess I will reinstall again with my original partition scheme to try to
make best use of the 9 gig disks in this thing..unless anyone else has
any pointers?
thanks again!
nate
Reply to: