From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 22 03:23:14 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C20516A41F for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:23:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gcr+freebsd-stable@tharned.org) Received: from nc8000.tharned.org (rrcs-24-56-87-26.ma.biz.rr.com [24.56.87.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AA943D45 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:23:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gcr+freebsd-stable@tharned.org) Received: from nc8000.tharned.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nc8000.tharned.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jAM3NBDb033018; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:23:11 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from gcr+freebsd-stable@tharned.org) Received: from localhost (gcr@localhost) by nc8000.tharned.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) with ESMTP id jAM3NBjH033015; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:23:11 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from gcr+freebsd-stable@tharned.org) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:23:10 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Rivers Sender: gcr@tharned.org To: Kris Kennaway In-Reply-To: <20051122021224.GA12402@xor.obsecurity.org> Message-ID: <20051121205535.W32523@nc8000.tharned.org> References: <20051121164139.T48994@w10.sac.fedex.com> <20051122021224.GA12402@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Recurring problem: processes block accessing UFS file system X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:23:14 -0000 On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Kris Kennaway wrote: > Looks like a UFS snapshot deadlock. Are you running something like dump > -L on this filesystem, or making other use of snapshots? > Indeed I am (dump -L), but as I said (not very clearly, sorry), the deadlock also occurs under normal operation when no snapshots are running or have ever been run since boot. It's just much less frequent in this case. Disabling dumps altogether was one of the first things I tried. > fsck -B also uses them, but shouldn't be running except at boot time. > Right, it isn't even at boot since I have background_fsck disabled. > You should take this up with Kirk McKusick - in > the meantime you can work around it by not making use of UFS snapshots. > Sounds good. Even though the problem may not be snapshot related, it certainly seems to be UFS related. Thanks for your suggestions and your prompt reply. -- Greg