Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:13:00 +0200 From: Thomas Backman <serenity@exscape.org> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Kip Macy <kip.macy@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS: Silent/hidden errors, nothing logged anywhere Message-ID: <BDC9D31F-B3A7-48C0-9B93-73E5F1C6FD40@exscape.org> In-Reply-To: <20090613150627.GB1848@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <920A69B1-4F06-477E-A13B-63CC22A13120@exscape.org> <3c1674c90906121401s19105167vf4535566321b45de@mail.gmail.com> <20090613150627.GB1848@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 13, 2009, at 05:06 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 02:01:57PM -0700, Kip Macy wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Thomas >> Backman<serenity@exscape.org> wrote: >>> OK, so I filed a PR late May (kern/135050): >>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=135050 . >>> I don't know if this is a "feature" or a bug, but it really should >>> be >>> considered the latter. The data could be repaired in the >>> background without >>> the user ever knowing - until the disk dies completely. I'd prefer >>> to have >>> warning signs (i.e. checksum errors) so that I can buy a >>> replacement drive >>> *before* that. >>> >>> Not only does this mean that errors can go unnoticed, but also >>> that it's >>> impossible to figure out which disk is broken, if ZFS has >>> *temporarily* >>> repaired the broken data! THAT is REALLY bad! >>> Is this something that we can expect to see changed before 8.0- >>> RELEASE? >> >> >> I'm fairly certain that we've discussed this already. Solaris uses >> FMA >> - I don't think that I'll get to a "real fix" any time soon. The time >> that I do have will go to addressing stability problems (memory >> over-allocation, NFS interaction, control directory mounts) all of >> which cause panics. Maintaining them persistently in the label >> doesn't >> make sense - when do you drop them? Would a simple log message >> about >> the number of checksum errors suffice? > > We do log such errors. Solaris uses FMA and for FreeBSD I use devd. > You > can find the following entry in /etc/devd.conf: > ... > If you see nothing in your logs, there must be a bug with reporting > the > problem somewhere or devd is not running (it should be enabled by > default). Awesome! After checking further I did indeed find a bunch of such messages in messages.0.bz2. One thing less to worry about, I guess. :) Regards, Thomas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BDC9D31F-B3A7-48C0-9B93-73E5F1C6FD40>