From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 28 02:45:24 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 048EC9A6 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:45:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from quine.pinyon.org (quine.pinyon.org [65.101.5.249]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8035C96 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:45:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by quine.pinyon.org (Postfix, from userid 122) id CDCAE1602C2; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:45:16 -0700 (MST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on quine.pinyon.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from feyerabend.n1.pinyon.org (feyerabend.n1.pinyon.org [10.0.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by quine.pinyon.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4D7E160247 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:45:14 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <544F033A.8070808@pinyon.org> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:45:14 -0700 From: "Russell L. Carter" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS errors on the array but not the disk. References: <544B12B8.8060302@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:45:24 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/27/14 18:47, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > Well... why wouldn't this trigger an error with (say) the checksums > on the devices themselves? Without throwing an error, why is the > vdev re - resilvering? I don't have spare hardware to throw at it. > It's otherwise a sane system. It can "make -j32 buildworld" > without choking. It can download several hundred torrents at a > time without corrupting them. Hardly seems like suspect hardware. I will just say as a non-zfs expert that I have had several disastrous raid failures over the last 15 yrs, and a couple that cost me real money, and it was always hw. And the reason it was disastrous was I couldn't diagnose it even though I was a pseudo-expert. I spent a lot of time under deadlines assuming the underlying hw was sane. The software diagnostics were no help. I trusted the hw then, but no more. And your reports (thank you) are a reminder to me to not give too much credence to zpool status. BR, Russell -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUTwM6AAoJEFnLrGVSDFaEkwwP/A6CsMOF0uT/TA6NAOQBeFIW Byh9ySfYbBg9gUCB7YZFLBqmhGDzV2HCNu58cniYfVwj2Hwrr+GGahUJfagQjT1w ssNoflihTIBCWcmanXLoD9W0QMpGuyfi556FDzRX4NunAwP+URidqcJuR3tsdCcz jPYIQLZL6qQO5EfdX+UR9kcBS1st/6oLQ+Y2IPUXlfvg+hUQ660dS+SIfHFc+qcg lg2fLh3Vz8bJp2BlYJR6/AaxmOGrqA7Ze9hG684vaVSAz8U5EUn4tC76OPAPc1N2 MATat7T8lot0SRI1EqLBp6vsWpYTZK7itPDjyABO6f21iltbtgvPN22Hcr8+wEdQ AdEK4WLBsTF+xtD9DER1rVsDGIIYbBhw5vfh/7d9/RLrtf0B8rOs6OQNXV+ubjoc I8W852jbZT1HojLEOqIdC7bzkjEgln7a0miG/VFQPjYiZG9b5juozeOPOStENrrp ehIvvlxkeJBfJm505oLhXhOgXITC1fABTHeMfCXcbr3zw4OaN/8nHN4L4u2+HI35 2ahiWqwN/i6tF4V74zZDi9djkwuU8e+/qNrndeLotaTmXudY1Ox3wNBYEyYFCmHJ DIBSUPKqcH3zOICfiO0mmVmPuU4a95HkslRtNy1mPTvNO4+Cpv7iLx28CdZHXWfg BYb9ymp0bL3HAgHZwamd =SOhS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----