From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 3 20:03:42 2006 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 E954216A426; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:03:42 +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 14FD343D77; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:03:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gcr+freebsd-stable@tharned.org) Received: from nc8000.tharned.org (gcr@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nc8000.tharned.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k03K3Gqs024376; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:03:16 -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 k03K36PU024373; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:03:06 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from gcr+freebsd-stable@tharned.org) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:03:06 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Rivers Sender: gcr@tharned.org To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20051122211507.P32523@nc8000.tharned.org> Message-ID: <20060103135624.A798@nc8000.tharned.org> References: <20051121164139.T48994@w10.sac.fedex.com> <20051122021224.GA12402@xor.obsecurity.org> <20051121205535.W32523@nc8000.tharned.org> <20051122043952.GA14168@xor.obsecurity.org> <20051122211507.P32523@nc8000.tharned.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Don Lewis , Kirk McKusick , Kris Kennaway 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, 03 Jan 2006 20:03:43 -0000 On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, I wrote: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >> It may not be the same problem. You should also try to obtain a trace when >> snapshots are not implicated. >> > > Agreed. I'll do so at the first opportunity. > First, my thanks to all of you for looking into this. It's taken more than a month, but the problem has recurred without snapshots ever having been run. I've got a good trace of the machine in this state (ftp://ftp.fedex.com/incoming/no-snapshots.bz2). My apologies for the size of the debug output, but the processes had really stacked up this time before I noticed it. I have enough capacity that I can afford to have this machine out of production for a while, so I've left it suspended in kdb for the time being in case additional information is needed. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to facilitate troubleshooting this. Thanks! -- Greg