From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Sat Mar 14 14:29:52 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2BEB25ADC0 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:29:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wjw@digiware.nl) Received: from smtp.digiware.nl (smtp.digiware.nl [176.74.240.9]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48flMG3y6Dz47jK for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:29:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wjw@digiware.nl) Received: from router.digiware.nl (localhost.digiware.nl [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.digiware.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90654F6C; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 15:29:42 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at digiware.com Received: from smtp.digiware.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by router.digiware.nl (router.digiware.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IvnrGFsLerpP; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 15:29:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.10.9] (vaio [192.168.10.9]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.digiware.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D85154F6B; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 15:29:41 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: ZFS pools in "trouble" To: Peter Eriksson Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems References: <71e1f22a-1261-67d9-e41d-0f326bf81469@digiware.nl> <91e1cd09-b6b8-f107-537f-ae2755aba087@FreeBSD.org> <15bde4a5-0a2e-9984-dfd6-fce39f079f52@digiware.nl> <2137BCAA-03B7-4DFB-B4F3-B0B26A56D416@lysator.liu.se> From: Willem Jan Withagen Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 15:29:41 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2137BCAA-03B7-4DFB-B4F3-B0B26A56D416@lysator.liu.se> Content-Language: nl X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48flMG3y6Dz47jK X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of wjw@digiware.nl designates 176.74.240.9 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=wjw@digiware.nl X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.68 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.98)[-0.983,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[digiware.nl]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[9.240.74.176.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.9.2]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; IP_SCORE(-3.20)[ip: (-9.78), ipnet: 176.74.224.0/19(-4.89), asn: 28878(-1.36), country: NL(0.03)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; ASN(0.00)[asn:28878, ipnet:176.74.224.0/19, country:NL]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:29:52 -0000 On 14-3-2020 13:40, Peter Eriksson wrote: > That probably corresponds to: > >    ZPOOL_STATUS_BAD_GUID_SUM    /* sum of device guids didn't match */ > (From /usr/src/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzfs/common/libzfs.h) > > > Which get set in: > /usr/src/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzfs/common/libzfs_status.c > >        /* >          * Check that the config is complete. >          */ >         if (vs->vs_state == VDEV_STATE_CANT_OPEN && >             vs->vs_aux == VDEV_AUX_BAD_GUID_SUM) >                 return (ZPOOL_STATUS_BAD_GUID_SUM); > > > /usr/src/sys # find . -name '*.c' -print0 | xargs -0 fgrep > VDEV_AUX_BAD_GUID_SUM > ./cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/vdev_missing.c:* > VDEV_AUX_BAD_GUID_SUM.  So we pretend to succeed, knowing that we > ./cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/spa.c:return > (spa_vdev_err(rvd, VDEV_AUX_BAD_GUID_SUM, ENXIO)); > ./cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/spa.c:return > (spa_vdev_err(rvd, VDEV_AUX_BAD_GUID_SUM, > ./cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/vdev.c:case > VDEV_AUX_BAD_GUID_SUM: > > >        error = spa_check_for_missing_logs(spa); >         if (error != 0) >                 return (spa_vdev_err(rvd, VDEV_AUX_BAD_GUID_SUM, ENXIO)); > >         if (rvd->vdev_guid_sum != spa->spa_uberblock.ub_guid_sum) { >                 spa_load_failed(spa, "uberblock guid sum doesn't match > MOS " >                     "guid sum (%llu != %llu)", > (u_longlong_t)spa->spa_uberblock.ub_guid_sum, > (u_longlong_t)rvd->vdev_guid_sum); >                 return (spa_vdev_err(rvd, VDEV_AUX_BAD_GUID_SUM, >                     ENXIO)); >         } > > > Missing the logs perhaps? Right that is the case here, but I was led to believe that a log failure no longer would spell desaster on the vdev??? But clearly it does in this case.... --WjW