From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 17 22:00:02 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24AF46EF for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:00:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [8.8.178.135]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43108FC08 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:00:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9HM01Dr026554 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:00:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q9HM01Zn026553; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:00:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:00:01 GMT Message-Id: <201210172200.q9HM01Zn026553@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Martin Birgmeier Subject: Re: kern/171415: [zfs] zfs recv fails with " cannot receive incremental stream: invalid backup stream" X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Martin Birgmeier List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:00:02 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/171415; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Martin Birgmeier To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: kern/171415: [zfs] zfs recv fails with "cannot receive incremental stream: invalid backup stream" Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:50:53 +0200 One more test with the goal of determining whether iscontrol or istgt is the culprit... The test setup is altered as follows: In addition to the 6 partitions which are being used for the zpool on v903, also v903's OS partition (GPT, holding /, /usr, and swap) is being exported from hal via istgt (i.e., as iSCSI targets). Then v903 is started as a VirtualBox client on a Windows 7 host, where the (now 7) partitions are included via VirtualBox's iSCSI facility (http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch05.html#idp17868816) as ada0 and ada1..ada6. This setup results in a flawless zfs receive of the sent stream, again checked via md5 of all files. In addition the number (but not md5) of files in all snapshot directories (.zfs/snapshot/*) were checked. This is a strong indication that indeed iscontrol is problematic. Regards, Martin p.s. Some observations using this setup: It is a lot faster than running v903 in a VirtualBox client on hal. I had to do a disk check of v903 because it had crashed, and checking the UFS file systems / and /usr was in fact blazingly fast, much faster than when its containing partition was directly connected in hal as VirtualBox host. Also, the subsequent zfs import test ran with a sustained rate of approximately 23 MB/s, whereas with v903 on hal as host it ran with only 15 MB/s (see my previous test), a speed increase of 50%. One should note that in the setup of this test, there is a 1 Gbps Ethernet between hal as the server and the Windows host, whereas otherwise v903 runs directly on hal, which at least in theory should result in much quicker I/O. So it seems that not only iscontrol needs fixing, but VirtualBox on FreeBSD hosts could use some optimization. But then, FreeBSD is the work of volunteers, and at this point of my tests is certainly the time to thank them for all the great possibilities this system offers!