From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Mon Aug 15 05:02:00 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@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 7A4A5BB7F19 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 05:02:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from delphij@delphij.net) Received: from anubis.delphij.net (anubis.delphij.net [64.62.153.212]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "anubis.delphij.net", Issuer "StartCom Class 1 DV Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B1B41616 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 05:02:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from delphij@delphij.net) Received: from Xins-MBP.home.us.delphij.net (unknown [IPv6:2601:646:8880:a197:c892:fffe:6584:2452]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by anubis.delphij.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9361A171B3; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:01:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delphij.net; s=anubis; t=1471237314; x=1471251714; bh=K6M0CWpskkKz4S8fuMuDRMeRUehDNoDmfrxuNeT2IsM=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=3XtH2RuT7Dgz2va15o7VZDsBPv3O/hgwzrvWTUU/egLVqqsLeVfjy9XKTRoagAilp 5Dh3+d3GXsiZGKD+JjI78b/tPcEmIJcKVxEngb4xqkZ6aKExs9wDxHN0BKB3j5sifh UEj53UmgQhiR1+MBOnbF0ujzRs2HlnFul93PT7A0= Subject: Re: zfs_recovery=1, zdb, mounted pool? To: Zaphod Beeblebrox References: <3a38203a-e397-9695-b147-2fb46fa92d0a@delphij.net> Cc: d@delphij.net, freebsd-fs From: Xin Li Message-ID: <3b1ad8c4-f073-998b-84ed-f906029572ba@delphij.net> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:01:50 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8BhltCdlINBPOGkaXaUR2rjEMaMk3t0Nn" X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 05:02:00 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --8BhltCdlINBPOGkaXaUR2rjEMaMk3t0Nn Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="1pN9GAoBnfQJ1Bh3cEgdCVRkHI8hALxOB" From: Xin Li To: Zaphod Beeblebrox Cc: d@delphij.net, freebsd-fs Message-ID: <3b1ad8c4-f073-998b-84ed-f906029572ba@delphij.net> Subject: Re: zfs_recovery=1, zdb, mounted pool? References: <3a38203a-e397-9695-b147-2fb46fa92d0a@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: --1pN9GAoBnfQJ1Bh3cEgdCVRkHI8hALxOB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 8/14/16 21:46, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Xin Li > wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 8/14/16 13:04, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > > So... I found 319 of the errno 122 errors by running zdb. My > question is > > this: > > > > Can I run with zfs_recovery=3D1 and have zdb fix these (which are= > free space > > leaked errors) while the system is running? >=20 > No. >=20 > If I was you I would definitely do a full backup to a different pla= ce, > recreate the pool and restore from the backup. >=20 > It's not safe to use your pool as-is, don't do it for everybody's s= ake. >=20 >=20 > So, then, do I start a big bug on this issue? Is there a bug on this > issue? Seriously... it appears to have happened to multiple people. I don't think so -- zfs_recovery is the last resort option that disables certain assertions, which implies that your pool is already damaged beyond repair (i.e. beyond the redundancy margin that ZFS have had built in, e.g. multiple copies of metadata, RAID-Z, etc.), typically as a result of RAM issues. In theory it is possible to rebuild space map and recover the space, but note that space map have sufficient redundancy that, if you have see errors in it that can not be corrected by ZFS's self-healing, it's highly likely that there are much more damage to the pool already. If you don't have a reproduction case for this one that can reliably trigger a leak without hardware issue, I think it would be just a waste of time to file a bug. Cheers, --1pN9GAoBnfQJ1Bh3cEgdCVRkHI8hALxOB-- --8BhltCdlINBPOGkaXaUR2rjEMaMk3t0Nn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXsUzBAAoJEJW2GBstM+ns4/sQAKGk4r1/OkABoUAZHc+v5HT6 g/0ttoSHFK7jorK/Zz1jNHBG27WhN9eRokBZzy9bGvudjmhvbT0BVGJCzqtBo4yo maghRKiQO/9DL4Wwcy+P7w8tWrZrbEQOz8FKp31WO1NiFCw5Pq782kXwBiMcIG+E z9Up7IHIN77cQCsQUZkfzxMS/ZfiVFXex8glOxuXHAnWWK+1uNl+/62fQeYEN93Y JkXYGVGRrdZKD5gDsr6lGIEUyGCInj/QI5g99q5DfumLaZ016xE2GZmmIZnQbRH9 NKbE8O1abBFRt69eOVi6v1ojXm5RAq7td7OLejYcs/RuKsTYZpZxq1xWOFWB6HV6 ql73SBnnt5R3andKE4gP4xjl+3/eWv+hHVdNtGHmmVjth2rRTtUzDeGIdA0TKpcB haHWB3H3xiJwkKLGiCSVLxaI22v48UcQ0GUR6PMHlyQojjWcyoRnZTKZoNNhu/zM 6ZncKWW3J+D9alNA3VAKWOZ0rkaShyWgvM8GGgHSu2GemiR++rN7OpBj3K6ZIYaD I3yh1V0zULDgOQAfXyIeEovdelZy2aLNwtlKg1/nl2Wn7WU3Jo5Zp9q3BH49ZhAN ZyG1bBCWQI9nckb2LF5JJq9jk5SJfboYrwgL1S9aBCcv0YWyMi1FcxURoaRZbMRM gIZEX4XA6oUympA34CSO =xBiX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8BhltCdlINBPOGkaXaUR2rjEMaMk3t0Nn--