From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Oct 24 15:08:00 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C7FE5036A for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:08:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-wr0-x22a.google.com (mail-wr0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C144663564 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:07:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: by mail-wr0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id g90so21012457wrd.6 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:07:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7BnVgLUys+BPi8HEQviVHQa6aA+AQHSx4LZH0li/RwU=; b=eGbjGsnIM0BLwXXnHJri8/02RnuL5z26Z9fhdyDCMrtDBi8fxi+c0HECeSFoJ0x6oD iZ/OG1Bk+QcN/Hm0QYCj7jNcpzobb6JRTigOrTDcrDSxDCgki6lyD3rXPbJ8GVpBE7BO e8NdOl1+nnrKcY+tLLuNIfmuTPLv4ObFyIkQwUpf+8JO3mIvwk1+aXoldvkhz5b/gHKK VL0JJRjO0tO1Tmx3eJoDcJ8fasrzk2ngyZQGqZdoorI8hm7QJCJsgbOznIYIRswPoZqw 4po7tv0b0+3PhsisNWzMTZtOGbUceOIS+1y4H6xOf83JdFn8pN3NHC2Cv6hykv56u+q1 FZlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVD8BGT3VTgr7by1prY1eGOrDd7Hnb/z0HU3zIDRzdpeI2D9WG7 dFadZvMZuHujJ/iSbdNaaUYQhw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Tp/Z9gkSDOU1nvantOaSw4oI6YhQBwWWXCsAPJXKH7fLbbMLU8qorBNb5oyGdIcDSi6JY1lQ== X-Received: by 10.223.176.214 with SMTP id j22mr2791941wra.24.1508857677811; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com ([81.17.24.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p7sm484560wmg.44.2017.10.24.08.07.56 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:07:54 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Periodic jobs lockf timeout Message-ID: <20171024160754.36f00c0a@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; amd64-portbld-freebsd11.1) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:08:00 -0000 On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:07:31 +0200 Borja Marcos wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I=E2=80=99ve come across a problem with the =E2=80=9Cdaily=E2=80=9D secur= ity job. On an > overloaded system with lots of ZFS datasets, lots of files, heavy > system load and, to add insult to injury, a ZFS crub going on the > find=E2=80=99s issued by the periodic checks can take forever. They can t= ake > so long, I have found several lockf=E2=80=99s waiting. >=20 > Is it sane to have an unlimited timeout for lockf? Probably it would > be better to have at least a configurable timeout=20 What problem does this solve? >=20 > There=E2=80=99s even a parameter on /etc/defaults/periodic.conf but it se= ems > it=E2=80=99s not used right now. >=20 > # Max time to sleep to avoid causing congestion on download servers > anticongestion_sleeptime=3D3600 In 11.1 it's used in the file it's defined in: sleep `jot -r 1 0 ${anticongestion_sleeptime}`