From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 5 14:07:37 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@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 BB0F7271 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:07:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFA289F for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:07:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UO7Ie-0003Gk-7i; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:07:29 +0200 Received: from [81.21.138.17] (helo=ronaldradial.versatec.local) by smtp.greenhost.nl with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UO7Ie-0007tK-0b; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:07:28 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: "Peter Maloney" , "Joar Jegleim" Subject: Re: Regarding regular zfs References: <8B0FFF01-B8CC-41C0-B0A2-58046EA4E998@my.gd> <515EB744.5000607@brockmann-consult.de> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:07:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Ronald Klop" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.15 (Win32) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: -0.5 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Scan-Signature: 71684ae416b12bc74806129cb02de027 Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:07:37 -0000 On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:02:12 +0200, Joar Jegleim wrote: > You make some interesting points . > I don't _think_ the script 'causes more than 1 zfs write at a time, and > I'm > sure 'nothing else' is doing that neither . But I'm gonna check that out > because it does sound like a logical explanation. > I'm wondering if the rsync from the receiving server (that is: the backup > server is doing rsync from the zfs receive server) could 'cause the same > problem, it's only reading though ... > > > Do you run the rsync from a snapshot or from the 'live' filesystem? The live one changes during zfs receive. I don't know if that has anything to do with your problem, but rsync from a snapshot gives a consistent backup anyway. BTW: It is probably more simple for you to test if the rsync is related to the problem, than for other people to theorize about it here. Ronald.