Re: Strange messages in my kernel log

From: Michael Robinton (
Date: Wed Aug 30 2000 - 23:42:34 EST

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Neil Brown wrote:

> On Wednesday August 30, wrote:
> >
> > I have strange messages in my kernel log (1-2 messages per day)
> >
> > raid5: bug: stripe->bh_new[2], sector 477640 exists
> > raid5: bh 8ffd6da0, bh_new 8ffd63e0
> > raid5: bug: stripe->bh_new[2], sector 6677320 exists
> > raid5: bh aca1f060, bh_new aca1f720
> > raid5: bug: stripe->bh_new[1], sector 6854048 exists
> > raid5: bh b94c02c0, bh_new b94c0260
> > raid5: bug: stripe->bh_new[2], sector 6889584 exists
> > raid5: bh 833949c0, bh_new 83394d80
> >
> >
> > What does it mean? Can this cause data corruption? Can i fix this problem?
> > I use softvare RAID level 5, in kernel 2.2.16 with RH patches.
> What does it means?
> It means that raid5 received an IO request for a block of data for
> which is already had an outstanding IO request. In these cases the
> two i/o requests had different buffer_head strutures.
> raid5 reports a bug, but actually handles the situation fairly
> gracefully: it blocks the second request until the first has
> finished.
> Can this cause data corruption?
> Not directly, but it might be a symptom of something else that could
> cause corruption.
> Can i fix this problem?

I've seen this error!!! It is caused by setting the bios geometry
different than what the kernel detects when it loads. You can solve the
problem by setting the bios geometry the same as the kernel geometry.
Look at the info in /proc to see what the kernel thinks the drive looks
like or watch the boot dialog.

It might be something different in your case, but I had this problem and
tracked it down to this issue. Had two identical drives with different
internal software revisions that "looked" different to the linux kernel
disk drivers.

Raid won't care, but the "partitioning" will need to change for the
drives that have the problem, so you best remove it from the array, fix
it, repartition, and raidhotadd it back.


> Maybe, but first we need to understand it.
> The question is, how could there be two different buffer_heads for
> the same block on disk?
> My understanding of the 2.2 buffer cache is not very good, but I
> think that all filesystems and block device IO go through the buffer
> cache, so any of these accesses should never allow two buffer_heads
> to point to the same block.
> However I believe that swapping doesn't go through the buffer cache.
> So: what are you doing with the raid5 partition.
> What sort of file system?
> Are you swapping to a file on the filesystems?
> Is there any chance that a parity reconstruction is happening when
> you get these messages.
> Is there anything at all about your usage of the raid5 device that
> could possibly be at all out of the ordinary?
> >
> > Or tell me, who mantain software raid code, and may help me solve this
> > problem.
> Well, Ingo Molnar <> is the official maintainer, and I
> have been doing a fair bit of development lately.
> >
> > Also I have second question.
> > How much stable software RAID in latset 2.4.0 test series?
> quite stable, but not very fast. RAID5 in 2.4.0 in particular is much
> slower than 2.2.xx with mingo's patches. I'm working on this from
> time to time.
> NeilBrown
> >
> > --
> > With best regards
> > Alexander V. Nikolaev
> > System administrator of
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to
> > Please read the FAQ at
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:26 EST