Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:27:46 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Snapshot ufs blocking Message-ID: <20060314162746.GA37293@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <4416E193.30004@centtech.com> References: <4411A43E.5080500@centtech.com> <20060311043658.GA39298@xor.obsecurity.org> <4412576E.2030505@centtech.com> <20060311053201.GB40172@xor.obsecurity.org> <4414FB7B.2050203@centtech.com> <20060314121908.G36625@fledge.watson.org> <4416E193.30004@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 09:30:27AM -0600, Eric Anderson wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: > > > >On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Eric Anderson wrote: > > > >>>Thanks. There is an uncommitted patch being circulated that is=20 > >>>believed to address all remaining problems. It relies on other=20 > >>>fixes in -CURRENT that are not yet merged, but if you're able to=20 > >>>test it let me know and I'll forward. > >> > >>I can definitely test it - I'm running 6-STABLE currently, but I=20 > >>suppose I could get -CURRENT on there for the testing.. > > > >FYI, Jeff Roberson just did a large scale merge of=20 > >UFS/VFS/snapshot/... bug fixes from HEAD to RELENG_6, see my HEADS UP=20 > >post on -stable a day or so ago. It would be very useful to know if=20 > >these help, and if not, you may want to drop e-mail to Jeff Roberson=20 > >with a detailed description, since he's actively working on tracking=20 > >down and fixing these issues. > > > >Robert N M Watson >=20 > Well, updating to the latest RELENG_6, I see that progress is definitely= =20 > being made. I don't seem to be deadlocked anymore. Commands like ls=20 > and such work fine, until I ls the snapshot file itself, which blocked=20 > for about 10 minutes before finally completing, and once that command=20 > blocked (ufs) other ls -al commands blocked (ufs) on the root (/)=20 > directory and subsequent subdirs down to the snapshot. A 'sync' also=20 > blocked during this time (blkrd?), but the difference this time is that= =20 > they all completed. The snapshot completed within about 22 minutes (2Tb= =20 > filesystem, very little on this one), and commands returned before the=20 > snapshot finished at about the 10 minute mark, and subsequent commands=20 > (again, ls -al, etc), completed when the snapshot completed. The=20 > machine in question is a dual Xeon 2.8GHz with 4Gb of memory, running=20 > SMP kernel (pretty much GENERIC), and was about 30% busy (cpu) mostly=20 > 'system' and 'io'. The disk being snapshotted was very busy though.. Yes, that's expected behaviour. Kris --y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEFu8CWry0BWjoQKURAvSCAJ4v9Y3IQ41EgzBgliUDOhM/dZuydgCgij6a L39yKvao33tlQFHmCfSM72E= =D5JH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060314162746.GA37293>