From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue,  5 Mar 2013 09:04:45 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <c19ec7dd802d2f6446e126d59efc4885@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <62CFB779-38F2-4577-BB28-625AEBD2F1C1@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
References: <7E48F293-1D27-4958-BB64-BDDC490CB7E7@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
	<41f95d8dba3fa0a675fbc54e151ba844@kw.quanstro.net>
	<BF86FE5E-4EA3-4330-BA78-4DAC6F632CC3@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
	<62CFB779-38F2-4577-BB28-625AEBD2F1C1@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] dirty blocks in cwfs
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2426d89c-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue Mar  5 09:02:18 EST 2013, arisawa@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I reconsidered my problem. I said:
> > corresponding worm blocks of dirty cache blocks are garbage.
> now I think, this is not a problem. this is a state that it should be.
> the problem is only in the fact: my dirty blocks wouldn't be dumped.

have you ever seen information about "%lld blocks dumped"
in cwfs' log?

you might consider using acid to see if any processes are stuck
doing i/o.  though on second thought, that seems iffy.

- erik