REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"

[Ralf G. R. Bergs]

On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:44:18 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:

>On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 15:58, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:47:11 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> 
>> >> >you can try to delete unexpected.tdb
>> >> >it does not hold any vital information.
>> >> 
>> >> The problem has reappeared even after I removed the above file:
>> >> 
>> >> Feb  2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/02/02 11:18:29, 0] 
>> >> tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531) 
>> >> Feb  2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]:   tdb
>> (/var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb): 
>> >> tdb_oob len -2320 beyond eof at 24576 
>> >> Feb  2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/02/02 11:18:29, 0] 
>> >> tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531) 
>> >> Feb  2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]:   tdb
>> (/var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb): 
>> >> tdb_free: left read failed at 4294964952 (4096) 
>> [...]
>> 
>> >do they reside on an nfs mount? or any other "alternative" filesystem?
>> 
>> "They?" Does "what" reside on an NFS mount?
>
>sorry I mean the tdb files.

Weeeeeell, the TDB files (/var/run/samba) DO reside on an "alternative" 
filesystem in your words: They're on an XFS filesystem that itself resides on 
an EVMS logical volume that itself resides on a RAID-5 region. :-)

But the thing is that the system otherwise seems to run extremely well -- I 
don't see ANY other suspicious log entries.

[...]
>> The system in question is a Debian i386 "stable" (3.0) system, kernel is 
>> 2.4.20 release (with some patches such as EVMS and XFS, but EVMS is NOT in 
use 
>> for shares exported via Samba!!), Samba is 2.2.7a (a Debian package that I 
>> created myself.)
>
>I would try again with a standard ext2/3 file system. Just compile and
>install all samba related file under a well tested file system like
>ext2/3, I have had no problem with XFS, but 2.4.20 may have broke
>something subtle, who knows?

This is just not possible. The system we're talking about is a production 
fileserver for some hundred or so users. I can't change the partitioning 
scheme, nor can I change the filesystem used.

Shouldn't we rather try to isolate and fix the problem, rather than working 
around it?

Thanks,

Ralf


-- 
   L I N U X       .~.
  The  Choice      /V\
   of a  GNU      /( )\
  Generation      ^^-^^