From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 10:14:20 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC4B1065687 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:14:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from snb@moduli.net) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.170]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9118FC1D for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:14:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from snb@moduli.net) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so406979uge.39 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 03:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.207.18 with SMTP id j18mr3415025muq.21.1223891580203; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.102.228.7 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:53:00 +0200 From: "Nick Barkas" To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: CFT: vm_lowmem event handler patch for dirhash X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:14:20 -0000 Hello These past few months I worked with David Malone on a Google summer of code project for allocating memory for dirhash dynamically. The hope is that this will allow more memory to go to dirhashes on systems that have memory to spare, so that performance working with large directories can be improved. We decided to actually keep the current memory allocation scheme for dirhash unchanged, but I added a vm_lowmem event handler (see EVENTHANDLER(9)) so that older dirhashes will be deleted when the kernel signals that it needs more memory. This should allow vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem to be increased quite a bit above its current 2MB default. I have patches against FreeBSD 7-STABLE (I've only tested this one on 7.0-RELEASE) here: http://www.nada.kth.se/~barkas/dirhash_lowmem_7-stable_2008-8-14.patch and 8-CURRENT here: http://www.nada.kth.se/~barkas/dirhash_lowmem_head_2008-10-12.patch Please try these out if you can, and let me know if you see any performance benefits! I've only tested this code with some benchmark scripts, so I am very interested to see how it does under real workloads. Note that the patches do not yet change the default vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem because I haven't figured out what would be a new reasonable default yet. To allow for more than 2MB of dirhashes you'll need to set that yourself. In most of my testing on a system with 1GB of memory, I set dirhash_maxmem to 64MB. This seems to be more than enough space to fit, for example, dirhashes for a million email messages in maildirs. There are some other parameters that one could tune and potentially achieve better performance gains. The new vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage sysctl sets the number of seconds dirhashes can remain unused before a vm_lowmem event will unconditionally delete them. The default of 5s works reasonably well in all my tests, although it is somewhat workload dependent. If you change this value and see different performance under your workload, I would definitely like to hear about it. For more information and a bunch of graphs with results from my benchmarking, take a look at http://wiki.freebsd.org/DirhashDynamicMemory. Also, I'll be giving a talk about this project quite soon now at EuroBSDCon 2008. Nick From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 11:06:49 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756331065697 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:06:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6185B8FC2E for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:06:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m9DB6neg029418 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:06:49 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id m9DB6mEW029414 for freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:06:48 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:06:48 GMT Message-Id: <200810131106.m9DB6mEW029414@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: gnats set sender to owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org using -f From: FreeBSD bugmaster To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Current problem reports assigned to freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:06:49 -0000 Note: to view an individual PR, use: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. S Tracker Resp. Description -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o kern/127420 fs [gjournal] [panic] Journal overflow on gmirrored gjour o kern/127213 fs [tmpfs] sendfile on tmpfs data corruption o kern/127029 fs [panic] mount(8): trying to mount a write protected zi o kern/126287 fs [ufs] [panic] Kernel panics while mounting an UFS file o kern/125536 fs [ext2fs] ext 2 mounts cleanly but fails on commands li o kern/125149 fs [nfs][panic] changing into .zfs dir from nfs client ca o kern/124621 fs [ext3] Cannot mount ext2fs partition o kern/122888 fs [zfs] zfs hang w/ prefetch on, zil off while running t o bin/122172 fs [fs]: amd(8) automount daemon dies on 6.3-STABLE i386, o bin/121072 fs [smbfs] mount_smbfs(8) cannot normally convert the cha o bin/118249 fs mv(1): moving a directory changes its mtime o kern/116170 fs [panic] Kernel panic when mounting /tmp o kern/114955 fs [cd9660] [patch] [request] support for mask,dirmask,ui o kern/114847 fs [ntfs] [patch] [request] dirmask support for NTFS ala o kern/114676 fs [ufs] snapshot creation panics: snapacct_ufs2: bad blo o bin/114468 fs [patch] [request] add -d option to umount(8) to detach o bin/113838 fs [patch] [request] mount(8): add support for relative p o bin/113049 fs [patch] [request] make quot(8) use getopt(3) and show o kern/112658 fs [smbfs] [patch] smbfs and caching problems (resolves b o kern/93942 fs [vfs] [patch] panic: ufs_dirbad: bad dir (patch from D 20 problems total. From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 11:44:03 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26C41065692 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:44:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [91.103.162.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8EF8FC16 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:44:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from localhost (localhost.codelab.cz [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4746219E02D for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:44:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (r5bb235.net.upc.cz [86.49.61.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3462C19E023 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:43:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:44:32 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: cz, cs, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:44:03 -0000 I am planning to install new server for backups with 4x 1TB SATA II drives in RAIDZ. There will be about 20 separated filesystems from one zpool, few jails with ssh (scp/sftp), rsync and maybe FTP daemons, no other services with huge RAM utilization. As FreeBSD 7.1(-BETA) amd64 still have some limits of kernel space memory, are there any benefits to put more then 2GB or 3GB in this server? Will it be more stabel or faster with for example 6GB of RAM? (I can buy it, RAM is really cheap in these days, but will it have some sense or is it vaste?) I am using this tuning on testing machine (with 2GB RAM): vm.kmem_size="1024M" vm.kmem_size_max="1024M" vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable="1" vfs.zfs.arc_min="16M" vfs.zfs.arc_max="64M" kern.maxvnodes="400000" (recommendations from http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide) Have somebody better results with another values? Miroslav Lachman From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 12:38:26 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8661065696 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:38:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@koitsu.dyndns.org) Received: from QMTA09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.96]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1B38FC17 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:38:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@koitsu.dyndns.org) Received: from OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by QMTA09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id SBm21a00217dt5G59CeQct; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:38:24 +0000 Received: from koitsu.dyndns.org ([69.181.141.110]) by OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id SCeP1a0072P6wsM3ZCePGV; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:38:24 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=uLa3tYrcrR8A:10 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=QycZ5dHgAAAA:8 a=68AR_x4ShNVt--3BVtUA:9 a=gNV3tk284n14kU-pGjs7tL7zzz8A:4 a=I1Jhw5_g8joA:10 a=EoioJ0NPDVgA:10 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10 Received: by icarus.home.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 60764C9419; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 05:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 05:38:23 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Message-ID: <20081013123823.GA18738@icarus.home.lan> References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:38:26 -0000 On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 01:44:32PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > I am planning to install new server for backups with 4x 1TB SATA II > drives in RAIDZ. There will be about 20 separated filesystems from one > zpool, few jails with ssh (scp/sftp), rsync and maybe FTP daemons, no > other services with huge RAM utilization. As FreeBSD 7.1(-BETA) amd64 > still have some limits of kernel space memory, are there any benefits to > put more then 2GB or 3GB in this server? Will it be more stabel or > faster with for example 6GB of RAM? (I can buy it, RAM is really cheap > in these days, but will it have some sense or is it vaste?) Adding more RAM will work just fine for userland programs, meaning they will be able to make use of the additional RAM. The kernel, with regards to kmap and kmem, however, will not. If you need that functionality, you'll have to run CURRENT. > I am using this tuning on testing machine (with 2GB RAM): > vm.kmem_size="1024M" > vm.kmem_size_max="1024M" > vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable="1" > vfs.zfs.arc_min="16M" > vfs.zfs.arc_max="64M" > kern.maxvnodes="400000" > > (recommendations from http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide) > > Have somebody better results with another values? The values look fine, but keep in mind that you still may encounter crashing with that kind of load (you're sticking a lot of stuff on one single box, all of which utilises ZFS heavily). You'll simply need to tune these as those situations arise. -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 13:05:19 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B1281065687 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:05:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-fs@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64238FC15 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:05:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-fs@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KpMQG-0003BH-HV for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:21:16 +0000 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:21:16 +0000 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:21:16 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:22:02 +0200 Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig81F8E554CCD474BB8AE2F2D7" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080925) In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Sender: news Subject: Re: CFT: vm_lowmem event handler patch for dirhash X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:05:19 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig81F8E554CCD474BB8AE2F2D7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nick Barkas wrote: > For more information and a bunch of graphs with results from my > benchmarking, take a look at > http://wiki.freebsd.org/DirhashDynamicMemory. Also, I'll be giving a > talk about this project quite soon now at EuroBSDCon 2008. It's interesting to see that the 2 MB cache is sometimes a little bit faster than the 64 MB one (e.g. kernel build, svn operations, mail). Can you point to an explanation? A bad hash function? Bucket count too low? Experimental inaccuracy? --------------enig81F8E554CCD474BB8AE2F2D7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI8z1qldnAQVacBcgRAtF+AKDA7tBBHH7yBXMFoBGN0EJ6bW0lOACg+srX 4Z+A766RDKQzDXRzXo/QgaU= =zjRR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig81F8E554CCD474BB8AE2F2D7-- From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 15:20:10 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A464106568A for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:20:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288328FC30 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:20:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m9DFK9Jm054796 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:20:09 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id m9DFK9lP054795; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:20:09 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:20:09 GMT Message-Id: <200810131520.m9DFK9lP054795@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org From: Jaakko Heinonen Cc: Subject: Re: kern/125149: [zfs][nfs] changing into .zfs dir from nfsclientcauses endless panic loop X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jaakko Heinonen List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:20:10 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/125149; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jaakko Heinonen To: Weldon Godfrey Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/125149: [zfs][nfs] changing into .zfs dir from nfsclientcauses endless panic loop Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:11:46 +0300 On 2008-10-10, Weldon Godfrey wrote: > Which, btw, could this also be the other issue I was seeing? When we > tested rigoriously from CentOS 3.x clients, after 2-3 hrs of testing, > the system would panic. From the fbsd-fs list, it was noted from the > backtrace that the vnode was becoming invalid. Well, if you mean this message http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2008-August/005120.html and Rick's analysis is correct I am quite certain that they are different issues. -- Jaakko From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 20:43:13 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753F11065691 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:43:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matt@corp.spry.com) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.237]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 375B08FC15 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:43:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matt@corp.spry.com) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s17so611819wxc.7 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.240.19 with SMTP id n19mr2678329wfh.332.1223929302164; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:21:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from matt.spry.com (207-178-4-6.wia.com [207.178.4.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 27sm15060879wfa.2.2008.10.13.13.21.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9AAEBB23-75E8-49B2-BA2F-0AF98F79280F@corp.spry.com> From: Matt Simerson To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:21:36 -0700 References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:43:13 -0000 It all depends on your workload. If you work your backup serves hard (as I do, backing up thousands of OS instances), you'll have significant reliability problems using FreeBSD 7.1 and ZFS. After a crash that corrupted my file systems, I have moved to 8-head with Pawel's latest patch. My backup servers have between 16 and 24 disks each. The ones with 16GB of RAM crash far less frequently than my server that has only 2GB. That one is getting upgraded soon. Matt On Oct 13, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > I am planning to install new server for backups with 4x 1TB SATA II > drives in RAIDZ. There will be about 20 separated filesystems from > one zpool, few jails with ssh (scp/sftp), rsync and maybe FTP > daemons, no other services with huge RAM utilization. As FreeBSD > 7.1(-BETA) amd64 still have some limits of kernel space memory, are > there any benefits to put more then 2GB or 3GB in this server? Will > it be more stabel or faster with for example 6GB of RAM? (I can buy > it, RAM is really cheap in these days, but will it have some sense > or is it vaste?) > > I am using this tuning on testing machine (with 2GB RAM): > vm.kmem_size="1024M" > vm.kmem_size_max="1024M" > vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable="1" > vfs.zfs.arc_min="16M" > vfs.zfs.arc_max="64M" > kern.maxvnodes="400000" > > (recommendations from http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide) > > Have somebody better results with another values? > > Miroslav Lachman > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 21:08:09 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600D8106568B for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:08:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [91.103.162.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0F88FC21 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:08:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from localhost (localhost.codelab.cz [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1489819E019; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:08:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (r5bb235.net.upc.cz [86.49.61.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A0AA19E023; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:08:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:08:38 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: cz, cs, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Simerson References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <9AAEBB23-75E8-49B2-BA2F-0AF98F79280F@corp.spry.com> In-Reply-To: <9AAEBB23-75E8-49B2-BA2F-0AF98F79280F@corp.spry.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:08:09 -0000 Matt Simerson wrote: > > It all depends on your workload. If you work your backup serves hard > (as I do, backing up thousands of OS instances), you'll have > significant reliability problems using FreeBSD 7.1 and ZFS. After a > crash that corrupted my file systems, I have moved to 8-head with > Pawel's latest patch. > > My backup servers have between 16 and 24 disks each. The ones with 16GB > of RAM crash far less frequently than my server that has only 2GB. That > one is getting upgraded soon. > > Matt I am planning to backup about 10-15 servers (mainly webservers and few mailservers) and not expecting high load. Did 8-current with the latest ZFS patch fixed all stability problems? Thanks for suggestions to both of you. Miroslav Lachman From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 21:21:54 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68CA1065689 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:21:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matt@corp.spry.com) Received: from mail-gx0-f16.google.com (mail-gx0-f16.google.com [209.85.217.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966268FC17 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:21:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matt@corp.spry.com) Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so3480264gxk.19 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.48.3 with SMTP id v3mr2884406wfv.8.1223932912780; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:21:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from matt.spry.com (207-178-4-6.wia.com [207.178.4.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm15313396wfg.15.2008.10.13.14.21.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:21:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> From: Matt Simerson To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:21:48 -0700 References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <9AAEBB23-75E8-49B2-BA2F-0AF98F79280F@corp.spry.com> <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:21:54 -0000 On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Matt Simerson wrote: >> It all depends on your workload. If you work your backup serves >> hard (as I do, backing up thousands of OS instances), you'll have >> significant reliability problems using FreeBSD 7.1 and ZFS. After >> a crash that corrupted my file systems, I have moved to 8-head >> with Pawel's latest patch. >> My backup servers have between 16 and 24 disks each. The ones with >> 16GB of RAM crash far less frequently than my server that has only >> 2GB. That one is getting upgraded soon. >> Matt > > I am planning to backup about 10-15 servers (mainly webservers and > few mailservers) and not expecting high load. > Did 8-current with the latest ZFS patch fixed all stability problems? > > Thanks for suggestions to both of you. > > Miroslav Lachman No, there are still stability issues under heavy load. The are just far less frequent under 8-current than under 7. I couldn't keep my systems up for more than 2 days before switching to 8. Running 8-head was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head with "the patch" applied. Matt From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 21:55:27 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44E5106569E for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:55:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yalur@mail.ru) Received: from mx40.mail.ru (mx40.mail.ru [194.67.23.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E76F8FC0A for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:55:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yalur@mail.ru) Received: from [93.73.134.74] (port=30980 helo=scrupulous.sifter.volia.net) by mx40.mail.ru with asmtp id 1KpVNt-000G0H-00 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:55:25 +0400 From: Ruslan Kovtun Organization: Home To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:52:14 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> In-Reply-To: <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810140052.14718.yalur@mail.ru> X-Spam: Not detected X-Mras: OK Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: yalur@mail.ru List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:55:28 -0000 > was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head with > "the patch" applied. Is this patch already applied after cvsup or I need apply it manualy? ______________________________ > On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > Matt Simerson wrote: > >> It all depends on your workload. If you work your backup serves > >> hard (as I do, backing up thousands of OS instances), you'll have > >> significant reliability problems using FreeBSD 7.1 and ZFS. After > >> a crash that corrupted my file systems, I have moved to 8-head > >> with Pawel's latest patch. > >> My backup servers have between 16 and 24 disks each. The ones with > >> 16GB of RAM crash far less frequently than my server that has only > >> 2GB. That one is getting upgraded soon. > >> Matt > > > > I am planning to backup about 10-15 servers (mainly webservers and > > few mailservers) and not expecting high load. > > Did 8-current with the latest ZFS patch fixed all stability problems? > > > > Thanks for suggestions to both of you. > > > > Miroslav Lachman > > No, there are still stability issues under heavy load. The are just > far less frequent under 8-current than under 7. I couldn't keep my > systems up for more than 2 days before switching to 8. Running 8-head > was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head with > "the patch" applied. > > Matt > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- ________________ Ruslan Kovtun mailto: yalur@mail.ru mob: +380503557878, +380919015095 ICQ: 277696182 From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 21:57:28 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5AD91065691 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:57:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@koitsu.dyndns.org) Received: from QMTA10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.17]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F92B8FC15 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:57:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@koitsu.dyndns.org) Received: from OMTA14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.60]) by QMTA10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id SBdP1a0081HzFnQ5AMxTt6; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:57:27 +0000 Received: from koitsu.dyndns.org ([69.181.141.110]) by OMTA14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id SMxP1a0082P6wsM3aMxPFk; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:57:23 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=uLa3tYrcrR8A:10 a=QycZ5dHgAAAA:8 a=p6yOLn-tC4l4a-QC0LUA:9 a=nDtcc2DgkCWk3drn8azbRViytEYA:4 a=EoioJ0NPDVgA:10 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10 Received: by icarus.home.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CB600C9419; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:57:22 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick To: Ruslan Kovtun Message-ID: <20081013215722.GA29946@icarus.home.lan> References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> <200810140052.14718.yalur@mail.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200810140052.14718.yalur@mail.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:57:28 -0000 On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:52:14AM +0300, Ruslan Kovtun wrote: > > was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head with > > "the patch" applied. > > Is this patch already applied after cvsup or I need apply it manualy? AFAIK, the ZFS patch in question *has not* been committed to HEAD; you will need to apply the patch manually. -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 14 16:53:53 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C47D1065689 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:53:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from snb@moduli.net) Received: from gv-out-0910.google.com (gv-out-0910.google.com [216.239.58.190]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3888FC13 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:53:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from snb@moduli.net) Received: by gv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n8so467256gve.39 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.199.16 with SMTP id b16mr4682422muq.5.1224003230169; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.102.228.7 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:53:50 +0200 From: "Nick Barkas" To: "Ivan Voras" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFT: vm_lowmem event handler patch for dirhash X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:53:53 -0000 On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Ivan Voras wrote: > Nick Barkas wrote: > >> For more information and a bunch of graphs with results from my >> benchmarking, take a look at >> http://wiki.freebsd.org/DirhashDynamicMemory. Also, I'll be giving a >> talk about this project quite soon now at EuroBSDCon 2008. > > It's interesting to see that the 2 MB cache is sometimes a little bit > faster than the 64 MB one (e.g. kernel build, svn operations, mail). Can > you point to an explanation? A bad hash function? Bucket count too low? > Experimental inaccuracy? Yes, some of the benchmark results have been a bit surprising to me. On 7.0, at least, the results seem pretty reasonable. The kernel build and svn operations tests were faster with 2MB than 64MB of memory without my vm_lowmem handler, or with the patch while using certain reclaim age values that apparently were not so good. This makes sense to me because, perhaps, these tasks can run faster when more memory is available for things other than dirhash. In both of these cases, using a 64MB limit for dirhash with the reclaim age at 5 seconds outperformed the default 2MB limit on an unpatched kernel. Mail creation is faster in all cases when there is a higher memory limit for dirhash, presumably because this is a task (inserting files into huge directories) that dirhash optimizes really well. On -CURRENT things seem to make less sense, though. Both the kernel build and svn operations are fastest when using 64MB of memory for dirhash, with no vm_lowmem handler. Mail creation is surprisingly fastest when using only a 2MB limit for dirhash, and slowest when using 64MB on an unpatched kernel. This is pretty much the opposite of what we see on 7.0. Using the kernel with the vm_lowmem handler results in performance that is usually somewhere between the results we get with the 2MB and 64MB unpatched kernel. I don't have a very good theory to explain these results right now. Most of the changes in the dirhash code between the 7 and 8 branches involve differences in locking. It would probably be necessary to do some profiling of the kernel and the benchmark processes both to get a better idea of what's going on. Before I do that, though, I was hoping to see what kind of results others may find using my code with a real world application. It is certainly possible that my results are strange simply because my tests are not so realistic :) Nick From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 14 21:00:14 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4451065687 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:00:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yalur@mail.ru) Received: from mx7.mail.ru (mx7.mail.ru [194.67.23.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5810E8FC27 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:00:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yalur@mail.ru) Received: from [93.73.134.74] (port=44675 helo=scrupulous.sifter.volia.net) by mx7.mail.ru with asmtp id 1Kpqzt-0003Gk-00; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:00:05 +0400 From: Ruslan Kovtun Organization: Home To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:59:34 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> In-Reply-To: <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200810142359.34263.yalur@mail.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam: Not detected X-Mras: OK Cc: Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: yalur@mail.ru List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:00:14 -0000 I tried to apply this patch (zfs_20080727.patch) but I have found several errors (see below). Is this problem with patch or I need manualy apply these changes? Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/zfs_context.h using Plan A... Hunk #11 failed at 347. Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/zfs_context.h using Plan A... Hunk #11 failed at 347. Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_ctldir.c using Plan A... Hunk #26 failed at 1053. Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_replay.c using Plan A... Hunk #18 failed at 766. Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vnops.c using Plan A... Hunk #82 failed at 3478. Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_znode.c using Plan A... Hunk #6 failed at 136. Hunk #13 failed at 560. Hunk #18 failed at 759. Hunk #20 failed at 877. Hunk #26 failed at 1336. Patching file sys/kern/kern_jail.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 failed at 34. ____________________________________________________ > On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > Matt Simerson wrote: > >> It all depends on your workload. If you work your backup serves > >> hard (as I do, backing up thousands of OS instances), you'll have > >> significant reliability problems using FreeBSD 7.1 and ZFS. After > >> a crash that corrupted my file systems, I have moved to 8-head > >> with Pawel's latest patch. > >> My backup servers have between 16 and 24 disks each. The ones with > >> 16GB of RAM crash far less frequently than my server that has only > >> 2GB. That one is getting upgraded soon. > >> Matt > > > > I am planning to backup about 10-15 servers (mainly webservers and > > few mailservers) and not expecting high load. > > Did 8-current with the latest ZFS patch fixed all stability problems? > > > > Thanks for suggestions to both of you. > > > > Miroslav Lachman > > No, there are still stability issues under heavy load. The are just > far less frequent under 8-current than under 7. I couldn't keep my > systems up for more than 2 days before switching to 8. Running 8-head > was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head with > "the patch" applied. > > Matt > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- ________________ Ruslan Kovtun mailto: yalur@mail.ru mob: +380503557878, +380919015095 ICQ: 277696182 From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 14 22:27:22 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C510010656A9 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:27:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ler@lerctr.org) Received: from thebighonker.lerctr.org (thebighonker.lerctr.org [192.147.25.65]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFF58FC38 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:27:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ler@lerctr.org) Received: from 64.3.1.253.ptr.us.xo.net ([64.3.1.253]:18572 helo=LROSENMAN) by thebighonker.lerctr.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Kps6H-0008C6-3j; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:10:46 -0500 From: "Larry Rosenman" To: , References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> <200810142359.34263.yalur@mail.ru> In-Reply-To: <200810142359.34263.yalur@mail.ru> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:10:34 -0500 Message-ID: <00a901c92e49$b480ccc0$1d826640$@org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 thread-index: AckuP+4lLus9kmjNSlum0xSXnpu6SQACXpEw Content-Language: en-us X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-LERCTR-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Spam-Report: SpamScore (-2.3/5.0) ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_OTHER=0.135, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931 X-LERCTR-Spam-Report: SpamScore (-2.3/5.0) ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_OTHER=0.135, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931 DomainKey-Status: no signature Cc: Subject: RE: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:27:22 -0000 This is a known issue. HEAD has diverged from the sources that the = patch was generated against.=20 I've been running with a HEAD from 2008-08-24 with the patch and = upgraded ZFS pool/FS's and have no complaints. I'm just waiting patiently for pjd@FreeBSD.org to = either update the patch or commit the updated bits to HEAD. I'm not going to update my system again till something is in svn/cvs. --=20 Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org] = On Behalf Of Ruslan Kovtun Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:00 PM To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage I tried to apply this patch (zfs_20080727.patch) but I have found = several=20 errors (see below). Is this problem with patch or I need manualy apply = these=20 changes? Patching file = cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/zfs_context.h=20 using Plan A... Hunk #11 failed at 347. Patching file = cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/zfs_context.h=20 using Plan A... Hunk #11 failed at 347. Patching file = sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_ctldir.c=20 using Plan A... Hunk #26 failed at 1053. Patching file = sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_replay.c=20 using Plan A... Hunk #18 failed at 766. Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vnops.c = using=20 Plan A... Hunk #82 failed at 3478. Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_znode.c = using=20 Plan A... Hunk #6 failed at 136. Hunk #13 failed at 560. Hunk #18 failed at 759. Hunk #20 failed at 877. Hunk #26 failed at 1336. Patching file sys/kern/kern_jail.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 failed at 34. ____________________________________________________ > On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > Matt Simerson wrote: > >> It all depends on your workload. If you work your backup serves > >> hard (as I do, backing up thousands of OS instances), you'll have > >> significant reliability problems using FreeBSD 7.1 and ZFS. After > >> a crash that corrupted my file systems, I have moved to 8-head > >> with Pawel's latest patch. > >> My backup servers have between 16 and 24 disks each. The ones with > >> 16GB of RAM crash far less frequently than my server that has only > >> 2GB. That one is getting upgraded soon. > >> Matt > > > > I am planning to backup about 10-15 servers (mainly webservers and > > few mailservers) and not expecting high load. > > Did 8-current with the latest ZFS patch fixed all stability = problems? > > > > Thanks for suggestions to both of you. > > > > Miroslav Lachman > > No, there are still stability issues under heavy load. The are just > far less frequent under 8-current than under 7. I couldn't keep my > systems up for more than 2 days before switching to 8. Running 8-head > was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head with > "the patch" applied. > > Matt > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" --=20 ________________ Ruslan Kovtun=20 mailto: yalur@mail.ru mob: +380503557878, +380919015095 ICQ: 277696182 _______________________________________________ freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 14 23:18:08 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D611E106568E for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:18:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matt@corp.spry.com) Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.29]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E6258FC33 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:18:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matt@corp.spry.com) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so589451yxb.13 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:18:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.125.9 with SMTP id x9mr87195wfc.66.1224026286375; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from matt.spry.com (207-178-4-6.wia.com [207.178.4.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 32sm19808584wfa.8.2008.10.14.16.18.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5B6268D5-3418-4BB1-A013-D04F299C68C1@corp.spry.com> From: Matt Simerson To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200810142359.34263.yalur@mail.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:18:02 -0700 References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> <200810142359.34263.yalur@mail.ru> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:18:08 -0000 As I mentioned earlier, you want to sync to -HEAD as of the date of the patch. Try something like this: $ more /usr/local/etc/cvsup-head *default host=cvsup8.FreeBSD.org *default base=/var/db *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs tag=. *default delete use-rel-suffix *default date=2008.08.13.00.00.00 *default compress src-all On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Ruslan Kovtun wrote: > I tried to apply this patch (zfs_20080727.patch) but I have found > several > errors (see below). Is this problem with patch or I need manualy > apply these > changes? > > Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/ > zfs_context.h > using Plan A... > Hunk #11 failed at 347. > > Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/ > zfs_context.h > using Plan A... > Hunk #11 failed at 347. > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > zfs_ctldir.c > using Plan A... > Hunk #26 failed at 1053. > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > zfs_replay.c > using Plan A... > Hunk #18 failed at 766. > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > zfs_vnops.c using > Plan A... > Hunk #82 failed at 3478. > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > zfs_znode.c using > Plan A... > Hunk #6 failed at 136. > Hunk #13 failed at 560. > Hunk #18 failed at 759. > Hunk #20 failed at 877. > Hunk #26 failed at 1336. > > Patching file sys/kern/kern_jail.c using Plan A... > Hunk #1 failed at 34. > > > ____________________________________________________ >> On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: >>> Matt Simerson wrote: >>>> It all depends on your workload. If you work your backup serves >>>> hard (as I do, backing up thousands of OS instances), you'll have >>>> significant reliability problems using FreeBSD 7.1 and ZFS. After >>>> a crash that corrupted my file systems, I have moved to 8-head >>>> with Pawel's latest patch. >>>> My backup servers have between 16 and 24 disks each. The ones with >>>> 16GB of RAM crash far less frequently than my server that has only >>>> 2GB. That one is getting upgraded soon. >>>> Matt >>> >>> I am planning to backup about 10-15 servers (mainly webservers and >>> few mailservers) and not expecting high load. >>> Did 8-current with the latest ZFS patch fixed all stability >>> problems? >>> >>> Thanks for suggestions to both of you. >>> >>> Miroslav Lachman >> >> No, there are still stability issues under heavy load. The are just >> far less frequent under 8-current than under 7. I couldn't keep my >> systems up for more than 2 days before switching to 8. Running 8- >> head >> was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head >> with >> "the patch" applied. >> >> Matt >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > -- > ________________ > Ruslan Kovtun > mailto: yalur@mail.ru > mob: +380503557878, +380919015095 > ICQ: 277696182 From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 15 09:30:04 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16B2C106568B for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:30:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yalur@mail.ru) Received: from mx71.mail.ru (mx71.mail.ru [194.67.23.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913108FC19 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:30:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yalur@mail.ru) Received: from [93.73.134.74] (port=14180 helo=scrupulous.sifter.volia.net) by mx71.mail.ru with asmtp id 1Kq2hX-0007LY-00 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:29:55 +0400 From: Ruslan Kovtun Organization: Home To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:29:54 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <200810142359.34263.yalur@mail.ru> <5B6268D5-3418-4BB1-A013-D04F299C68C1@corp.spry.com> In-Reply-To: <5B6268D5-3418-4BB1-A013-D04F299C68C1@corp.spry.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810151229.54582.yalur@mail.ru> X-Spam: Not detected X-Mras: OK Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: yalur@mail.ru List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:30:04 -0000 Thanks, Matt. I decide to correct these errors manually. Now rebuilding is in process. But I am afraid that I have missed something and it can corrupt my data in zfs pool. Lets check. :) __________________________________________ > As I mentioned earlier, you want to sync to -HEAD as of the date of > the patch. Try something like this: > > > $ more /usr/local/etc/cvsup-head > *default host=cvsup8.FreeBSD.org > *default base=/var/db > *default prefix=/usr > *default release=cvs tag=. > *default delete use-rel-suffix > *default date=2008.08.13.00.00.00 > *default compress > src-all > > On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Ruslan Kovtun wrote: > > I tried to apply this patch (zfs_20080727.patch) but I have found > > several > > errors (see below). Is this problem with patch or I need manualy > > apply these > > changes? > > > > Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/ > > zfs_context.h > > using Plan A... > > Hunk #11 failed at 347. > > > > Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/ > > zfs_context.h > > using Plan A... > > Hunk #11 failed at 347. > > > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > > zfs_ctldir.c > > using Plan A... > > Hunk #26 failed at 1053. > > > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > > zfs_replay.c > > using Plan A... > > Hunk #18 failed at 766. > > > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > > zfs_vnops.c using > > Plan A... > > Hunk #82 failed at 3478. > > > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > > zfs_znode.c using > > Plan A... > > Hunk #6 failed at 136. > > Hunk #13 failed at 560. > > Hunk #18 failed at 759. > > Hunk #20 failed at 877. > > Hunk #26 failed at 1336. > > > > Patching file sys/kern/kern_jail.c using Plan A... > > Hunk #1 failed at 34. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > > >> On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > >>> Matt Simerson wrote: > >>>> It all depends on your workload. If you work your backup serves > >>>> hard (as I do, backing up thousands of OS instances), you'll have > >>>> significant reliability problems using FreeBSD 7.1 and ZFS. After > >>>> a crash that corrupted my file systems, I have moved to 8-head > >>>> with Pawel's latest patch. > >>>> My backup servers have between 16 and 24 disks each. The ones with > >>>> 16GB of RAM crash far less frequently than my server that has only > >>>> 2GB. That one is getting upgraded soon. > >>>> Matt > >>> > >>> I am planning to backup about 10-15 servers (mainly webservers and > >>> few mailservers) and not expecting high load. > >>> Did 8-current with the latest ZFS patch fixed all stability > >>> problems? > >>> > >>> Thanks for suggestions to both of you. > >>> > >>> Miroslav Lachman > >> > >> No, there are still stability issues under heavy load. The are just > >> far less frequent under 8-current than under 7. I couldn't keep my > >> systems up for more than 2 days before switching to 8. Running 8- > >> head > >> was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head > >> with > >> "the patch" applied. > >> > >> Matt > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > -- > > ________________ > > Ruslan Kovtun > > mailto: yalur@mail.ru > > mob: +380503557878, +380919015095 > > ICQ: 277696182 > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- ________________ Ruslan Kovtun mailto: yalur@mail.ru mob: +380503557878, +380919015095 ICQ: 277696182 From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 15 17:54:57 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0127F106568B for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:54:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yalur@mail.ru) Received: from mx33.mail.ru (mx33.mail.ru [194.67.23.194]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BCDD8FC1C for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:54:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yalur@mail.ru) Received: from [93.73.134.74] (port=40057 helo=scrupulous.sifter.volia.net) by mx33.mail.ru with asmtp id 1KqAaE-000F4X-00 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:54:54 +0400 From: Ruslan Kovtun Organization: Home To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:54:53 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <200810142359.34263.yalur@mail.ru> <5B6268D5-3418-4BB1-A013-D04F299C68C1@corp.spry.com> In-Reply-To: <5B6268D5-3418-4BB1-A013-D04F299C68C1@corp.spry.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810152054.53638.yalur@mail.ru> X-Spam: Not detected X-Mras: OK Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: yalur@mail.ru List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:54:57 -0000 I have downloaded snapshot ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/200807/8.0-CURRENT-200807-amd64-disc1.iso and extract src folder from it. I applied patch zfs_20080727.patch without ay errors. Buildworld finished succesfull but make kernel failed (see below). How can I solve this problem? /usr/src/sys/modules/zfs/../../cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c:178: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before string constant /usr/src/sys/modules/zfs/../../cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c:178: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before '&' token /usr/src/sys/modules/zfs/../../cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c:178: warning: data definition has no type or storage class /usr/src/sys/modules/zfs/../../cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c:178: warning: type defaults to 'int' in declaration of 'TUNABLE_QUAD' /usr/src/sys/modules/zfs/../../cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c:181: error: expected ')' before '(' token /usr/src/sys/modules/zfs/../../cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c:183: error: expected ')' before '(' token /usr/src/sys/modules/zfs/../../cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c:398: error: expected ')' before '(' token /usr/src/sys/modules/zfs/../../cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c:400: error: expected ')' before '(' token *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/src/sys/modules/zfs. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/src/sys/modules. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/src. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/src. ___________________________________________ > As I mentioned earlier, you want to sync to -HEAD as of the date of > the patch. Try something like this: > > > $ more /usr/local/etc/cvsup-head > *default host=cvsup8.FreeBSD.org > *default base=/var/db > *default prefix=/usr > *default release=cvs tag=. > *default delete use-rel-suffix > *default date=2008.08.13.00.00.00 > *default compress > src-all > > On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Ruslan Kovtun wrote: > > I tried to apply this patch (zfs_20080727.patch) but I have found > > several > > errors (see below). Is this problem with patch or I need manualy > > apply these > > changes? > > > > Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/ > > zfs_context.h > > using Plan A... > > Hunk #11 failed at 347. > > > > Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/ > > zfs_context.h > > using Plan A... > > Hunk #11 failed at 347. > > > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > > zfs_ctldir.c > > using Plan A... > > Hunk #26 failed at 1053. > > > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > > zfs_replay.c > > using Plan A... > > Hunk #18 failed at 766. > > > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > > zfs_vnops.c using > > Plan A... > > Hunk #82 failed at 3478. > > > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > > zfs_znode.c using > > Plan A... > > Hunk #6 failed at 136. > > Hunk #13 failed at 560. > > Hunk #18 failed at 759. > > Hunk #20 failed at 877. > > Hunk #26 failed at 1336. > > > > Patching file sys/kern/kern_jail.c using Plan A... > > Hunk #1 failed at 34. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > > >> On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > >>> Matt Simerson wrote: > >>>> It all depends on your workload. If you work your backup serves > >>>> hard (as I do, backing up thousands of OS instances), you'll have > >>>> significant reliability problems using FreeBSD 7.1 and ZFS. After > >>>> a crash that corrupted my file systems, I have moved to 8-head > >>>> with Pawel's latest patch. > >>>> My backup servers have between 16 and 24 disks each. The ones with > >>>> 16GB of RAM crash far less frequently than my server that has only > >>>> 2GB. That one is getting upgraded soon. > >>>> Matt > >>> > >>> I am planning to backup about 10-15 servers (mainly webservers and > >>> few mailservers) and not expecting high load. > >>> Did 8-current with the latest ZFS patch fixed all stability > >>> problems? > >>> > >>> Thanks for suggestions to both of you. > >>> > >>> Miroslav Lachman > >> > >> No, there are still stability issues under heavy load. The are just > >> far less frequent under 8-current than under 7. I couldn't keep my > >> systems up for more than 2 days before switching to 8. Running 8- > >> head > >> was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head > >> with > >> "the patch" applied. > >> > >> Matt > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > -- > > ________________ > > Ruslan Kovtun > > mailto: yalur@mail.ru > > mob: +380503557878, +380919015095 > > ICQ: 277696182 > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- ________________ Ruslan Kovtun mailto: yalur@mail.ru mob: +380503557878, +380919015095 ICQ: 277696182 From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 17 15:34:17 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740391065690 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:34:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vmail@lists.ukgrid.net) Received: from alpha.ukgrid.net (lists.manap.net [85.159.60.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3976F8FC15 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:34:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vmail@lists.ukgrid.net) Received: from vmail by alpha.ukgrid.net with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Kqr3m-000Pp9-I0 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:16:14 +0100 From: "andys" To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:16:14 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: VMail virtual user Subject: bsdlabel partiton c error message on new install X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:34:17 -0000 Hi, on a newly installed FreeBSD 7.0 system on a dell 1950 server I see the following error from bsdlabel. Is there any known issues with this or is the only reasonable explanation that I have managed to mess it up without even knowing? :P And should I manually change the partition c to fix the prob? Is this safe to do? bsdlabel -A /dev/da0s1 # /dev/da0s1: type: SCSI disk: da0s1 label: flags: bytes/sector: 512 sectors/track: 63 tracks/cylinder: 255 sectors/cylinder: 16065 cylinders: 17750 sectors/unit: 285155328 rpm: 3600 interleave: 1 trackskew: 0 cylinderskew: 0 headswitch: 0 # milliseconds track-to-track seek: 0 # milliseconds drivedata: 0 8 partitions: # size offset fstype [fsize bsize bps/cpg] a: 20971520 0 4.2BSD 2048 16384 28552 b: 20971520 75497472 swap c: 285153687 0 unused 0 0 # "raw" part, don't edit d: 20971520 20971520 4.2BSD 2048 16384 28552 e: 20971520 41943040 4.2BSD 2048 16384 28552 f: 12582912 62914560 4.2BSD 2048 16384 28552 bsdlabel: partition c doesn't cover the whole unit! bsdlabel: An incorrect partition c may cause problems for standard system utilities thanks for any advice, Im not really confident with the FreeBSD disk management as I havent used it much, thanks Andy. From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 18 08:14:12 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38C510656AA; Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:14:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from remko@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93338FC17; Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:14:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from remko@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (remko@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m9I8EC72037836; Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:14:12 GMT (envelope-from remko@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from remko@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id m9I8ECg2037826; Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:14:12 GMT (envelope-from remko) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:14:12 GMT Message-Id: <200810180814.m9I8ECg2037826@freefall.freebsd.org> To: remko@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-i386@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org From: remko@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: kern/128173: ext3fs: ls gives "Input/output error" on mounted ext3 filesystem X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:14:12 -0000 Old Synopsis: ls gives "Input/output error" on mounted ext3 filesystem New Synopsis: ext3fs: ls gives "Input/output error" on mounted ext3 filesystem Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-i386->freebsd-fs Responsible-Changed-By: remko Responsible-Changed-When: Sat Oct 18 08:13:50 UTC 2008 Responsible-Changed-Why: Reassign to filesystem team. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=128173