From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 31 16:29:33 2011 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 A52AD1065679 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:29:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E758FC14 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:29:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id TAA14556; Tue, 31 May 2011 19:29:29 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4DE51769.9060907@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 19:29:29 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110504 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland References: <0EFD28CD-F2E9-4AE2-B927-1D327EC99DB9@bitgravity.com> <4DE50811.5060606@FreeBSD.org> <7F79B120F4ED415F8BB9EB7A4483AF8D@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <7F79B120F4ED415F8BB9EB7A4483AF8D@multiplay.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ZFS: arc_reclaim_thread running 100%, 8.1-RELEASE, LBOLT related 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, 31 May 2011 16:29:34 -0000 on 31/05/2011 18:57 Steven Hartland said the following: > ----- Original Message ----- >> However, the arc_reclaim_thread does not have a ~24 day rollover - it >> does not use clock_t. I think this rollover in the integer results >> in LBOLT going negative, after about 106-107 days. We haven't noticed >> this until actually 112-115 days of uptime. I think it is also related >> to L1 ARC sizing, and load. Our systems with arc set to min-max of >> 512M/2G ARC haven't developed the issue - at least the CPU hogging thread >> - but the systems with 12G+ of ARC, and lots of rsync and du activity >> along side of random reads from the zpool develop the issue. > > > Looks like we had this on machine today which had only been up 66 days. Sorry, but 'looks' is not very definitive. > A reboot cleared it, but 66 days up time is nearly half previously reported > making it a bit more serious. It could have been some other bug or something else altogether. Without proper debugging/investigation it's impossible to tell. -- Andriy Gapon