Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:37:28 +0000 From: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> To: Marie Helene Kvello-Aune <marieheleneka@gmail.com>, Larry Rosenman <ler@freebsd.org> Cc: Freebsd fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 16.0E ExpandSize? -- New Server Message-ID: <d3a70027-8865-8087-cbd4-48ae37fa4505@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <CALXRTbc3aXhq1DgSd7BMn%2BvdbR%2B=Eb5VkfuoPmzT5f2bcnXckw@mail.gmail.com> References: <00db0ab7243ce6368c246ae20f9c075a@FreeBSD.org> <1a69057c-dc59-9b78-9762-4f98a071105e@multiplay.co.uk> <ce5a1d39612d694077accda33266a3ab@FreeBSD.org> <ad07e84e-f297-362a-1398-c5503bb56a8d@multiplay.co.uk> <35a9034f91542bb1329ac5104bf3b773@FreeBSD.org> <76fc9505-f681-0de0-fe0c-5624b29de321@multiplay.co.uk> <22e1bfc5840d972cf93643733682cda1@FreeBSD.org> <f2600a53-0dc1-9f41-1405-ed22d96d30cf@multiplay.co.uk> <8a710dc75c129f58b0372eeaeca575b5@FreeBSD.org> <aef02eb0-0888-6fea-a4b8-4033ca56f4a3@multiplay.co.uk> <d3181bd00c827fb99fbcebe6fe097ef8@FreeBSD.org> <a3d78923-5046-11c8-daea-713eacf47bd2@multiplay.co.uk> <ffc24b7bfacd265d637b633566bbaa51@FreeBSD.org> <CALXRTbc3aXhq1DgSd7BMn%2BvdbR%2B=Eb5VkfuoPmzT5f2bcnXckw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 31/01/2017 22:02, Marie Helene Kvello-Aune wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:49 PM Larry Rosenman <ler@freebsd.org > <mailto:ler@freebsd.org>> wrote: > > revert the other patch and apply this one? > > On 01/31/2017 3:47 pm, Steven Hartland wrote: > > > Hmm, looks like there's also a bug in the way vdev_min_asize is > calculated for raidz as it can and has resulted in child min_asize > which won't provided enough space for the parent due to the use of > unrounded integer division. > > > > 1981411579221 * 6 = 11888469475326 < 11888469475328 > > > > You should have vdev_min_asize: 1981411579222 for your children. > > > > Updated patch attached, however calculation still isn't 100% > reversible so may need work, however it does now ensure that the > children will provide enough capacity for min_asize even if all of > them are shrunk to their individual min_asize, which I believe > previously may not have been the case. > > > > This isn't related to the incorrect EXPANDSZ output, but would > be good if you could confirm it doesn't cause any issues for your > pool given its state. > > > > On 31/01/2017 21:00, Larry Rosenman wrote: > > > > borg-new /home/ler $ sudo ./vdev-stats.d > > Password: > > vdev_path: n/a, vdev_max_asize: 0, vdev_asize: 0, vdev_min_asize: 0 > > vdev_path: n/a, vdev_max_asize: 11947471798272, vdev_asize: > 11947478089728, vdev_min_asize: 11888469475328 > > vdev_path: /dev/mfid4p4, vdev_max_asize: 1991245299712, > vdev_asize: 1991245299712, vdev_min_asize: 1981411579221 > > vdev_path: /dev/mfid0p4, vdev_max_asize: 1991246348288, > vdev_asize: 1991246348288, vdev_min_asize: 1981411579221 > > vdev_path: /dev/mfid1p4, vdev_max_asize: 1991246348288, > vdev_asize: 1991246348288, vdev_min_asize: 1981411579221 > > vdev_path: /dev/mfid3p4, vdev_max_asize: 1991247921152, > vdev_asize: 1991247921152, vdev_min_asize: 1981411579221 > > vdev_path: /dev/mfid2p4, vdev_max_asize: 1991246348288, > vdev_asize: 1991246348288, vdev_min_asize: 1981411579221 > > vdev_path: /dev/mfid5p4, vdev_max_asize: 1991246348288, > vdev_asize: 1991246348288, vdev_min_asize: 1981411579221 > > ^C > > > > borg-new /home/ler $ > > > > borg-new /home/ler $ sudo zpool list -v > > Password: > > NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE EXPANDSZ FRAG CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT > > zroot 10.8T 94.3G 10.7T 16.0E 0% 0% 1.00x ONLINE - > > raidz1 10.8T 94.3G 10.7T 16.0E 0% 0% > > mfid4p4 - - - - - - > > mfid0p4 - - - - - - > > mfid1p4 - - - - - - > > mfid3p4 - - - - - - > > mfid2p4 - - - - - - > > mfid5p4 - - - - - - > > borg-new /home/ler $ > > > > On 01/31/2017 2:37 pm, Steven Hartland wrote: In that case based > on your zpool history I suspect that the original mfid4p4 was the > same size as mfid0p4 (1991246348288) but its been replaced with a > drive which is (1991245299712), slightly smaller. > > > > This smaller size results in a max_asize of 1991245299712 * 6 > instead of original 1991246348288* 6. > > > > Now given the way min_asize (the value used to check if the > device size is acceptable) is rounded to the the nearest metaslab > I believe that replace would be allowed. > > > https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/spa.c#L4947 > > > > Now the problem is that on open the calculated asize is only > updated if its expanding: > > > https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/vdev.c#L1424 > > > > The updated dtrace file outputs vdev_min_asize which should > confirm my suspicion about why the replace was allowed. > > > > On 31/01/2017 19:05, Larry Rosenman wrote: > > > > I've replaced some disks due to failure, and some of the > pariition sizes are different. > > > > autoexpand is off: > > > > borg-new /home/ler $ zpool get all zroot > > NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE > > zroot size 10.8T - > > zroot capacity 0% - > > zroot altroot - default > > zroot health ONLINE - > > zroot guid 11945658884309024932 default > > zroot version - default > > zroot bootfs zroot/ROOT/default local > > zroot delegation on default > > zroot autoreplace off default > > zroot cachefile - default > > zroot failmode wait default > > zroot listsnapshots off default > > zroot autoexpand off default > > zroot dedupditto 0 default > > zroot dedupratio 1.00x - > > zroot free 10.7T - > > zroot allocated 94.3G - > > zroot readonly off - > > zroot comment - default > > zroot expandsize 16.0E - > > zroot freeing 0 default > > zroot fragmentation 0% - > > zroot leaked 0 default > > zroot feature@async_destroy enabled local > > zroot feature@empty_bpobj active local > > zroot feature@lz4_compress active local > > zroot feature@multi_vdev_crash_dump enabled local > > zroot feature@spacemap_histogram active local > > zroot feature@enabled_txg active local > > zroot feature@hole_birth active local > > zroot feature@extensible_dataset enabled local > > zroot feature@embedded_data active local > > zroot feature@bookmarks enabled local > > zroot feature@filesystem_limits enabled local > > zroot feature@large_blocks enabled local > > zroot feature@sha512 enabled local > > zroot feature@skein enabled local > > borg-new /home/ler $ > > > > borg-new /home/ler $ gpart show > > => 40 3905945520 mfid0 GPT (1.8T) > > 40 1600 1 efi (800K) > > 1640 1024 2 freebsd-boot (512K) > > 2664 1432 - free - (716K) > > 4096 16777216 3 freebsd-swap (8.0G) > > 16781312 3889162240 4 freebsd-zfs (1.8T) > > 3905943552 2008 - free - (1.0M) > > > > => 40 3905945520 mfid1 GPT (1.8T) > > 40 1600 1 efi (800K) > > 1640 1024 2 freebsd-boot (512K) > > 2664 1432 - free - (716K) > > 4096 16777216 3 freebsd-swap (8.0G) > > 16781312 3889162240 4 freebsd-zfs (1.8T) > > 3905943552 2008 - free - (1.0M) > > > > => 40 3905945520 mfid2 GPT (1.8T) > > 40 1600 1 efi (800K) > > 1640 1024 2 freebsd-boot (512K) > > 2664 1432 - free - (716K) > > 4096 16777216 3 freebsd-swap (8.0G) > > 16781312 3889162240 4 freebsd-zfs (1.8T) > > 3905943552 2008 - free - (1.0M) > > > > => 40 3905945520 mfid3 GPT (1.8T) > > 40 1600 1 efi (800K) > > 1640 1024 2 freebsd-boot (512K) > > 2664 16777216 3 freebsd-swap (8.0G) > > 16779880 3889165680 4 freebsd-zfs (1.8T) > > > > => 40 3905945520 mfid5 GPT (1.8T) > > 40 1600 1 efi (800K) > > 1640 1024 2 freebsd-boot (512K) > > 2664 1432 - free - (716K) > > 4096 16777216 3 freebsd-swap (8.0G) > > 16781312 3889162240 4 freebsd-zfs (1.8T) > > 3905943552 2008 - free - (1.0M) > > > > => 40 3905945520 mfid4 GPT (1.8T) > > 40 1600 1 efi (800K) > > 1640 1024 2 freebsd-boot (512K) > > 2664 1432 - free - (716K) > > 4096 16777216 3 freebsd-swap (8.0G) > > 16781312 3889160192 4 freebsd-zfs (1.8T) > > 3905941504 4056 - free - (2.0M) > > > > borg-new /home/ler $ > > > > this system was built last week, and I **CAN** rebuild it if > necessary, but I didn't do anything strange (so I thought :) ) > > > > On 01/31/2017 12:30 pm, Steven Hartland wrote: Your issue is the > reported vdev_max_asize > vdev_asize: > > vdev_max_asize: 11947471798272 > > vdev_asize: 11947478089728 > > > > max asize is smaller than asize by 6291456 > > > > For raidz1 Xsize should be the smallest disk Xsize * disks so: > > 1991245299712 * 6 = 11947471798272 > > > > So your max asize looks right but asize looks too big > > > > Expand Size is calculated by: > > if (vd->vdev_aux == NULL && tvd != NULL && vd->vdev_max_asize != > 0) { > > vs->vs_esize = P2ALIGN(vd->vdev_max_asize - vd->vdev_asize, > > 1ULL << tvd->vdev_ms_shift); > > } > > > > So the question is why is asize too big? > > > > Given you seem to have some random disk sizes do you have auto > expand turned on? > > > > On 31/01/2017 17:39, Larry Rosenman wrote: vdev_path: n/a, > vdev_max_asize: 11947471798272, vdev_asize: 11947478089728 > > -- > Larry Rosenman http://people.freebsd.org/~ler > <http://people.freebsd.org/%7Eler>; [1] > Phone: +1 214-642-9640 <tel:%28214%29%20642-9640> > E-Mail: ler@FreeBSD.org > US Mail: 17716 Limpia Crk, Round Rock, TX 78664-7281 > > -- > Larry Rosenman http://people.freebsd.org/~ler > <http://people.freebsd.org/%7Eler>; [1] > Phone: +1 214-642-9640 <tel:%28214%29%20642-9640> > E-Mail: ler@FreeBSD.org > US Mail: 17716 Limpia Crk, Round Rock, TX 78664-7281 > > -- > Larry Rosenman http://people.freebsd.org/~ler > <http://people.freebsd.org/%7Eler>; > Phone: +1 214-642-9640 <tel:%28214%29%20642-9640> > E-Mail: ler@FreeBSD.org > US Mail: 17716 Limpia Crk, Round Rock, TX 78664-7281 > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://people.freebsd.org/%7Eler > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org > <mailto:freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org>" > > > I have the same observation on my home file server. I've not tried the > patches (will try that once I get time next week), but the output of > the dtrace script while doing 'zpool list -v' shows: > > # ./dtrace.sh > vdev_path: n/a, vdev_max_asize: 0, vdev_asize: 0 > vdev_path: n/a, vdev_max_asize: 23907502915584, vdev_asize: 23907504488448 > vdev_path: /dev/gpt/Bay1.eli, vdev_max_asize: 3984583819264, > vdev_asize: 3984583819264 > vdev_path: /dev/gpt/Bay2.eli, vdev_max_asize: 3984583819264, > vdev_asize: 3984583819264 > vdev_path: /dev/gpt/Bay3.eli, vdev_max_asize: 3984583819264, > vdev_asize: 3984583819264 > vdev_path: /dev/gpt/Bay4.eli, vdev_max_asize: 3984583819264, > vdev_asize: 3984583819264 > vdev_path: /dev/gpt/Bay5.eli, vdev_max_asize: 3984583819264, > vdev_asize: 3984583819264 > vdev_path: /dev/gpt/Bay6.eli, vdev_max_asize: 3984583819264, > vdev_asize: 3984583819264 > > The second line has the same discrepancy as above. This pool was > created without geli encryption first, then while the pool was still > empty, each drive was offlined and replaced with its .eli counterpart. > IIRC geli leaves some metadata on the disk, shrinking available space > ever so slightly, which seems to fit the proposed cause earlier in > this thread. > > MH Yes indeed it does. Regards Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d3a70027-8865-8087-cbd4-48ae37fa4505>