From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 21 05:58:44 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3C7D9C for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:58:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from quartz@sneakertech.com) Received: from relay00.pair.com (relay00.pair.com [209.68.5.9]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BBBDA2E for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:58:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 1021 invoked by uid 0); 21 Mar 2013 05:58:42 -0000 Received: from 173.48.104.62 (HELO ?10.2.2.1?) (173.48.104.62) by relay00.pair.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2013 05:58:42 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 173.48.104.62 Message-ID: <514AA192.2090006@sneakertech.com> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 01:58:42 -0400 From: Quartz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Chadwick Subject: Re: ZFS question References: <20130321044557.GA15977@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20130321044557.GA15977@icarus.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:58:45 -0000 > 1. freebsd-fs is the proper list for filesystem-oriented questions of > this sort, especially for ZFS. Ok, I'm assuming I should subscribe to that list and post there then? > 2. The issue you've described is experienced by some, and **not** > experienced by even more/just as many, so please keep that in mind. Well, that's a given. Presumably if zfs was flat out totally broken, 9.x wouldn't have been released or I would've already found a million pages about this via google. I'm assuming my problem is a corner case and there might've been a bug/regression, or I fundamentally don't understand how this works. > 3. You haven't provided any useful details, even in your follow-up post > here: I got the impression that there wasn't a lot of overlap between the mailing lists and the forums, so I wanted to post in both simultaneously. > - Contents of /boot/loader.conf > - Contents of /etc/sysctl.conf > - Output from "zpool get all" > - Output from "zfs get all" > - Output from "sysctl vfs.zfs kstat.zfs" I'm running a *virgin* 9.1 with no installed software or modifications of any kind (past setting up a non-root user). All of these will be at their install defaults (with the possible exception of the "failmode" setting, but that didn't help when I tried it the first time, so I didn't bother during later re-installs). > - Output from "zpool status" There isn't a lot of detail to be had here.... after I pop the 3rd drive, zfs/zpool commands almost always cause the system to hang, so I'm not sure if I can get anything out of them. Prior to the hang it will just tell you I have a six-drive raidz2 with two of the drives "removed", so I'm not sure how that will be terribly useful. I can tell you though that I'm creating the array with the following command: zpool create -f array raidz2 ada{2,3,4,5,6,7} There are eight drives in the machine at the moment, and I'm not messing with partitions yet because I don't want to complicate things. (I will eventually be going that route though as the controller tends to renumber drives in a first-come-first-serve order that makes some things difficult). > - Output from "dmesg" (probably the most important) When? ie; right after boot, or after I've hot plugged a few drives, or yanked them, or created a pool, or what? > I particularly tend to assist with disk-level problems, This machine is using a pile of spare seagate 250gb drives, if that makes any difference. > By rolling back, if there is an issue, you're > effectively ensuring it'll never get investigated or fixed, That's why I asked for clarification, to see if it was a known regression in 9.1 or something similar. >or don't have the > time/cycles/interest to help track it down, I have plenty of all that, for better or worse :) >that's perfectly okay too: > my recommendation is to go back to UFS (there's no shame in that). At the risk of being flamed off the list, I'll switch to debian if it comes to that. I use freebsd exclusively for zfs. > Else, as always, I strongly recommend running stable/9 (keep reading). My problem with tracking -stable is the relative volatility. If I'm trying to debug a problem it's not always easy or possible to keep consistent/known versions of things. With -release I know exactly what I'm getting and it cuts out a lot of variables. >just recently (~5 days ago) > MFC'd an Illumos ZFS feature solely to help debug/troubleshoot this > exact type of situation: introduction of the ZFS deadmean thread. Yes, I already discovered this from various solaris threads I encountered. > The purpose of this feature (enabled by default) is to induce a kernel > panic when ZFS I/O stalls/hangs This doesn't really help my situation though. If I wanted a panic I'd just set failmode=panic. > All that's assuming that the issue truly is ZFS waiting for I/O and not > something else Well, everything I've read so far indicates that zfs has issues when dealing with un-writable pools, so I assume that's what's going on here. ______________________________________ it has a certain smooth-brained appeal