From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 15 11:13:21 2008 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 788BA16A417 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:13:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (unknown [IPv6:2a01:170:102f::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0C913C46E for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:13:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m1FBDHxd015196; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:13:18 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m1FBDHYG015194; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:13:17 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) From: Oliver Fromme Message-Id: <200802151113.m1FBDHYG015194@lurza.secnetix.de> To: jhs@berklix.org (Julian H. Stacey) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:13:17 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <200802151100.m1FB0TvO054046@fire.js.berklix.net> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL8] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:13:18 +0100 (CET) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS2 corruption (RELENG_7, amd64) 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: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:13:21 -0000 Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > Chris Dillon wrote: > > > I've been seeing "UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY" fsck errors > > > show up in some of my filesytem snapshots on a RELENG_6 AMD64 box for > > > years (actually since RELENG_5), which will eventually lead to "panic: > > > snapblkfree: inconsistent block type" if those snapshots are mounted > > > and used. > > > > We do not use snapshots, and we don't see such panics. > > So this is probably unrelated. > > I've never enabled snapshots either, but was suprised to find one > recently! Though I recall it had been around a long while, it was > also certainly bigger than the physical disk it was on, (presumably > a sparse file). Yes, snapshots are sparse files, basically. > I just deleted it, & guessed some flag or > config file presence/ absence/ corruption etc had somehow > triggered it. (No one else would have enabled snapshots on it). If you haven't disabled background fsck in /etc/rc.conf, then snapshots will be created upon reboot after an unclean shutdown. Maybe that's where your snapshot came from. Another way to create snapshots implicitely is with dump(8), but you have to pass the -L option, so that shouldn't happen without you knowing. > Maybe schedule an outage, take off line & single user { foreground > fsck, & repeat till you get a clean run where it fixes nothing || > backup & newfs }. Hm. Yes, I think I will do an fsck -y -f on it until it is clean. But I fear the problem will occur again after a while. > Good luck! Thank you! Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "Being really good at C++ is like being really good at using rocks to sharpen sticks." -- Thant Tessman