Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 21:15:11 +1000 From: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> To: Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es> Cc: Walter Parker <walterp@gmail.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS... Message-ID: <B8464DE9-97CF-44EA-8318-41784C1D89D0@sorbs.net> In-Reply-To: <EF38E9E0-CB7A-48FB-B1FE-C2178CFEFEE9@sarenet.es> References: <30506b3d-64fb-b327-94ae-d9da522f3a48@sorbs.net> <56833732-2945-4BD3-95A6-7AF55AB87674@sorbs.net> <3d0f6436-f3d7-6fee-ed81-a24d44223f2f@netfence.it> <17B373DA-4AFC-4D25-B776-0D0DED98B320@sorbs.net> <70fac2fe3f23f85dd442d93ffea368e1@ultra-secure.de> <70C87D93-D1F9-458E-9723-19F9777E6F12@sorbs.net> <CAGMYy3tYqvrKgk2c==WTwrH03uTN1xQifPRNxXccMsRE1spaRA@mail.gmail.com> <5ED8BADE-7B2C-4B73-93BC-70739911C5E3@sorbs.net> <d0118f7e-7cfc-8bf1-308c-823bce088039@denninger.net> <2e4941bf-999a-7f16-f4fe-1a520f2187c0@sorbs.net> <20190430102024.E84286@mulder.mintsol.com> <41FA461B-40AE-4D34-B280-214B5C5868B5@punkt.de> <20190506080804.Y87441@mulder.mintsol.com> <08E46EBF-154F-4670-B411-482DCE6F395D@sorbs.net> <33D7EFC4-5C15-4FE0-970B-E6034EF80BEF@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> <A535026E-F9F6-4BBA-8287-87EFD02CF207@sorbs.net> <a82bfabe-a8c3-fd9a-55ec-52530d4eafff@denninger.net> <a1b78a63-0ef1-af51-4e33-a9a97a257c8b@sorbs.net> <CAMPTd_A7RYJ12pFyY4TzbXct82kWfr1hcEkSpDg7bjP25xjJGA@mail.gmail.com> <d91cf5@sorbs.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/ Sent from my iPad > On 09 May 2019, at 19:41, Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es> wrote: > > > >> On 9 May 2019, at 00:55, Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> This is true, but I am of the thought in alignment with the zFs devs this might not be a good idea... if zfs can’t work it out already, the best thing to do will probably be get everything off it and reformat… > > That’s true, I would rescue what I could and create the pool again but after testing the setup thoroughly. > +1 > It would be worth to have a look at the excellent guide offered by the FreeNAS people. It’s full of excellent advice and a > priceless list of “donts” such as SATA port multipliers, etc. > Yeah already worked out over time port multipliers can’t be good. >> >>> That sound not be hard to write if everything else on the disk has no >>> issues. Don't you say in another message that the system is now returning >>> 100's of drive errors. >> >> No, one disk in the 16 disk zRAID2 ... previously unseen but it could be the errors have occurred in the last 6 weeks... everytime I reboot it started resilvering, gets to 761M resilvered and then stops. > > That’s a really bad sign. It shouldn’t happen. That’s since the metadata corruption. That is probably part of the problem. > >>> How does that relate the statement =>Everything on >>> the disk is fine except for a little bit of corruption in the freespace map? >> >> Well I think it goes through until it hits that little bit of corruption at stops it mounting... then stops again.. >> >> I’m seeing 100s of hard errors at the beginning of one of the drives.. they were reported in syslog but only just so could be a new thing. Could be previously undetected.. no way to know. > > As for disk monitoring, smartmontools can be pretty good although only as an indicator. I also monitor my systems using Orca (I wrote a crude “devilator” many years > ago) and I gather disk I/O statistics using GEOM of which the read/write/delete/flush times are very valuable. An ailing disk can be returning valid data but become very slow due to retries. Yes, though often these will show up in syslog (something I monitor religiously... though I concede that when it hits syslog it’s probably already and urgent issue. Michellehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B8464DE9-97CF-44EA-8318-41784C1D89D0>