From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 19 09:27:12 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5736BF89 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 09:27:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ultra-secure.de (mail.ultra-secure.de [88.198.178.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B4E11049 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 09:27:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 97794 invoked by uid 89); 19 Apr 2014 09:27:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.207?) (rainer@ultra-secure.de@217.71.83.52) by mail.ultra-secure.de with ESMTPA; 19 Apr 2014 09:27:09 -0000 From: Rainer Duffner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: zfs sends "hang" recipient? Message-Id: <16C5BA3C-2E32-4BD6-93AC-8640D8CEF060@ultra-secure.de> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:27:08 +0200 To: FreeBSD FS Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 09:27:12 -0000 Hi, I=92ve got a FreeBSD 9.1 server that does zfs sends (via zxfer from = ports) to a FreeBSD 10.0 server. All AMD64, the pool is some 6T, 50% = full. Sender has 144GB RAM, recipient has 192GB. The snapshots are done with one of the tools in the ports (can=92t = remember the name right now, I=92ve basically tried them all). During the send process (with takes 5 to 15 minutes), the receiving host = is blocking all commands involving filesystems. Stuff like df, or zpool list hangs until the receive has completed. Is this a known problem? Would it help upgrading the 9.1 server to 10.0, too? In this setup, I=92m really conservative regarding upgrades, as I have = very little downtime. I=92ve got a MySQL database on the receiving server (not on the same = filesystem, of course, but on the same pool) that functions normally. I could ignore this, but our statistics-gathering tool relies on stuff = like the above and is completely b0rked by the hangs (which I could = ignore again, if it wasn=92t for the customer who wanted these = statistics, too=85) Rainer=