Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:52:27 -0400 From: Jona Schuman <jonaschuman@gmail.com> To: abhay trivedi <abhaytrivedi3@gmail.com>, "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: zfs send/recv dies when transferring large-ish dataset Message-ID: <CAC-LZTb4w2S2wrb3tXJsvC73h6ky_w_iPPhoeOWAsoZ-sd0Chw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAL2e%2Bnek5GqWUJTJDe0pbWia%2BsY2QgSJWe_6XieGPmdX8KGjZg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAC-LZTYLzFPTvA6S4CN0xTd-E_x9c3kxYwQoFed5LkVBrwVk0Q@mail.gmail.com> <57e0551229684b69bc27476b8a08fb91@DB3PR07MB059.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAC-LZTajW0SO_dH9ZtUH80zX628vcosL_vOzwkwB1JF1PZy0qA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL2e%2Bnek5GqWUJTJDe0pbWia%2BsY2QgSJWe_6XieGPmdX8KGjZg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
atime is off on both origin and destination datasets On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:30 PM, abhay trivedi <abhaytrivedi3@gmail.com> wrote: > Can you set atime off on Destination file system and try again? > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Jona Schuman <jonaschuman@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> machine2# nc -d -l 9999 | zfs receive -v -F -d storagepool >> machine1# zfs send -v -R dataset@snap | nc machine2 9999 >> >> machine1-output: sending from @ to dataset@snap >> machine2-output: receiving full stream of dataset@snap into >> storagepool/dataset@snap >> machine1-output: warning: cannot send 'dataset@snap': Broken pipe >> machine1-output: Broken pipe >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Ivailo Tanusheff >> <Ivailo.Tanusheff@skrill.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Can you try send/recv with the -v or with -vP swiches, so you can see >> > more verbose information? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Ivailo Tanusheff >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org] >> > On Behalf Of Jona Schuman >> > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 2:41 AM >> > To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org >> > Subject: zfs send/recv dies when transferring large-ish dataset >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I'm getting some strange behavior from zfs send/recv and I'm hoping >> > someone may be able to provide some insight. I have two identical machines >> > running 9.0-RELEASE-p3, each having a ZFS pool (zfs 5, zpool >> > 28) for storage. I want to use zfs send/recv for replication between the >> > two machines. For the most part, this has worked as expected. >> > However, send/recv fails when transferring the largest dataset (both in >> > actual size and in terms of number of files) on either machine. >> > With these datasets, issuing: >> > >> > machine2# nc -d -l 9999 | zfs recv -d storagepool machine1# zfs send >> > dataset@snap | nc machine2 9999 >> > >> > terminates early on the sending side without any error messages. The >> > receiving end continues on as expected, cleaning up the partial data >> > received so far and reverting to its initial state. (I've tried using >> > mbuffer instead of nc, or just using ssh, both with similar results.) Oddly, >> > zfs send dies slightly differently depending on how the two machines are >> > connected. When connected through the racktop switch, zfs send dies quietly >> > without any indication that the transfer has failed. >> > When connected directly using a crossover cable, zfs send dies quietly >> > and machine1 becomes unresponsive (no network, no keyboard, hard reset >> > required). In both cases, no messages are printed to screen or to anything >> > in /var/log/. >> > >> > >> > I can transfer the same datasets successfully if I send/recv to/from >> > file: >> > >> > machine1# zfs send dataset@snap > /tmp/dump machine1# scp /tmp/dump >> > machine2:/tmp/dump machine2# zfs recv -d storagepool < /tmp/dump >> > >> > so I don't think the datasets themselves are the issue. I've also >> > successfully tried send/recv over the network using different network >> > interfaces (10GbE ixgbe cards instead of the 1GbE igb links), which would >> > suggest the issue is with the 1GbE links. >> > >> > Might there be some buffering parameter that I'm neglecting to tune, >> > which is essential on the 1GbE links but may be less important on the faster >> > links? Are there any known issues with the igb driver that might be the >> > culprit here? Any other suggestions? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Jona >> > _______________________________________________ >> > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list >> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs >> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > -- > T@J
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAC-LZTb4w2S2wrb3tXJsvC73h6ky_w_iPPhoeOWAsoZ-sd0Chw>