From nobody Thu Aug 17 10:13:43 2023 X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4RRLZM57M0z4qVh9 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 10:18:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: from uucp.dinoex.org (uucp.dinoex.org [IPv6:2a0b:f840::12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "uucp.dinoex.sub.de", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4RRLZJ3rRDz4Q9h for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 10:18:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org designates 2a0b:f840::12 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org; dmarc=none Received: from uucp.dinoex.org (uucp.dinoex.org [IPv6:2a0b:f840:0:0:0:0:0:12]) by uucp.dinoex.org (8.17.2/8.17.2) with ESMTPS id 37HAI8gH082066 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 12:18:08 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: Received: (from uucp@localhost) by uucp.dinoex.org (8.17.2/8.17.2/Submit) with UUCP id 37HAI8Eh082060 for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 12:18:08 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: from admn.intra.daemon.contact (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by admn.intra.daemon.contact (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 37HADl2U032241 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 12:13:47 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: from intra.daemon.contact (news@localhost) by admn.intra.daemon.contact (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) with NNTP id 37HADhou032216 for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 12:13:43 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) X-Authentication-Warning: admn.intra.daemon.contact: news set sender to li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org using -f From: "Peter 'PMc' Much" X-Newsgroups: m2n.fbsd.stable Subject: Re: Interesting (Open)ZFS issue Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 10:13:43 -0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <25816.16958.659259.797522@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 10:13:43 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: admn.intra.daemon.contact; logging-data="27588"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@citylink.dinoex.sub.org" User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (FreeBSD) To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Milter: Spamilter (Reciever: uucp.dinoex.org; Sender-ip: 0:0:2a0b:f840::; Sender-helo: uucp.dinoex.org;) X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (uucp.dinoex.org [IPv6:2a0b:f840:0:0:0:0:0:12]); Thu, 17 Aug 2023 12:18:11 +0200 (CEST) X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.93 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.997]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.93)[-0.933]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org,li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-stable@freebsd.org]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[sub.org]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:205376, ipnet:2a0b:f840::/32, country:DE]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-stable@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org,li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org] X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4RRLZJ3rRDz4Q9h List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-stable List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org On 2023-08-13, Garrett Wollman wrote: > This seems to me like a bug: `zpool scrub` correctly identified the > damaged parts of the disk, so ZFS knows that those regions of the pool > are bad in some way -- they should cause an error rather than a panic! Yes, but it does. On seriousely inconsistent data -and zerofill is seriousely inconsistent- it can behave bad. I think one almost cannot code&catch every possible exception while still providing excellent performance. OTOH, I adopted ZFS very early for my database, and I am usually running on scrap hardware, but it never gave me a real data loss issue. cheers, PMc