From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 25 10:12:16 2007 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 3568B16A41A for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:12:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from raven.bwct.de (raven.bwct.de [85.159.14.73]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B8813C4B2 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:12:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de ([10.1.1.7]) by raven.bwct.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l8PACCKX033418; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:12:12 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [10.1.1.14]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l8PAC53E021057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:12:06 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l8PAC5Z2045884; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:12:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.13.4/8.13.3/Submit) id l8PAC5lN045883; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:12:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:12:04 +0200 From: Bernd Walter To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= Message-ID: <20070925101204.GQ38890@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <46F7EDD7.6060904@psg.com> <868x6vi0nd.fsf@ds4.des.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <868x6vi0nd.fsf@ds4.des.no> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.4-STABLE alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on cicely12.cicely.de Cc: Randy Bush , freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs in production? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:12:16 -0000 On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:56:22AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Randy Bush writes: > > we are thinking of using zfs on a production server, using gmirror for > > booting and then following http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSOnRoot for the rest. > > > > but we would like to hear from folk using zfs in production for any > > length of time, as we do not really have the resources to be pioneers. > > Works fine, but if using SATA, avoid Promise controllers. It is worse: pool: data state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected. action: Determine if the device needs to be replaced, and clear the errors using 'zpool clear' or replace the device with 'zpool replace'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-9P scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM data ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 ad4 ONLINE 0 0 5 ad6 ONLINE 0 0 8 ad8 ONLINE 0 0 11 These are WDC WD3200AAKS-00SBA0/12.01B01 connected to an SIL3114. System is amd64 from 26th june on core2quad with ECC RAM. My home system is using the same controller on i386/P3 and has no checksum errors - it is running source from 12th july. Considered that I'd seen lots of silent data corruptions with PATA disks on alpha during the last years I'm not that shure if the problem depends on a specific controller, but more on timing or such. It is easy to blame the controller, especially since SIL isn't known for quality, but in this case I believe it is our problem somehow. -- B.Walter http://www.bwct.de http://www.fizon.de bernd@bwct.de info@bwct.de support@fizon.de