Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 01:45:14 +0200 From: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> To: Tom Curry <thomasrcurry@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: This diskfailure should not panic a system, but just disconnect disk from ZFS Message-ID: <55874C8A.4090405@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <CAGtEZUBexzwjTGMXY%2BMg5knNsC%2Bf35TXhAqhL0vdOKoOUO1F3A@mail.gmail.com> References: <5585767B.4000206@digiware.nl> <558590BD.40603@isletech.net> <5586C396.9010100@digiware.nl> <CAGtEZUAO5-rBoz0YBcYfvZ6tx_sj0MEFuxGSYk%2Bz0XHrJySk2A@mail.gmail.com> <55873E1D.9010401@digiware.nl> <CAGtEZUBexzwjTGMXY%2BMg5knNsC%2Bf35TXhAqhL0vdOKoOUO1F3A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22/06/2015 01:34, Tom Curry wrote: > I asked because recently I had similar trouble. Lots of kernel panics, > sometimes they were just like yours, sometimes they were general > protection faults. But they would always occur when my nightly backups > took place where VMs on iSCSI zvol luns were read and then written over > smb to another pool on the same machine over 10GbE. > > I nearly went out of my mind trying to figure out what was going on, > I'll spare you the gory details, but I stumbled across this PR > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187594 and as I read So this is "the Karl Denninger ZFS patch".... I tried to follow the discussion at the moment, keeping it in the back of my head..... I concluded that the ideas where sort of accepted, but a different solution was implemented? > through it little light bulbs starting coming on. Luckily it was easy > for me to reproduce the problem so I kicked off the backups and watched > the system memory. Wired would grow, ARC would shrink, and then the > system would start swapping. If I stopped the IO right then it would > recover after a while. But if I let it go it would always panic, and > half the time it would be the same message as yours. So I applied the > patch from that PR, rebooted, and kicked off the backup. No more panic. > Recently I rebuilt a vanilla kernel from stable/10 but explicitly set > vfs.zfs.arc_max to 24G (I have 32G) and ran my torture tests and it is > stable. So you've (almost) answered my question, but English is not my native language and hence my question for certainty: You did not add the patch to your recently build stable/10 kernel... > So I don't want to send you on a wild goose chase, but it's entirely > possible this problem you are having is not hardware related at all, but > is a memory starvation issue related to the ARC under periods of heavy > activity. Well rsync will do that for you... And since a few months I've also loaded some iSCSI zvols as remote disks to some windows stations. Your suggestions are highly appreciated. Especially since I do not have space PCI-X parts... (It the current hardware blows up, I'm getting monder new stuff.) So other than checking some cabling and likes there is very little I could swap. Thanx, --WjW > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl > <mailto:wjw@digiware.nl>> wrote: > > On 21/06/2015 21:50, Tom Curry wrote: > > Was there by chance a lot of disk activity going on when this occurred? > > Define 'a lot'?? > But very likely, since the system is also a backup location for several > external service which backup thru rsync. And they can generate generate > quite some traffic. Next to the fact that it also serves a NVR with a > ZVOL trhu iSCSI... > > --WjW > > > > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl <mailto:wjw@digiware.nl> > > <mailto:wjw@digiware.nl <mailto:wjw@digiware.nl>>> wrote: > > > > On 20/06/2015 18:11, Daryl Richards wrote: > > > Check the failmode setting on your pool. From man zpool: > > > > > > failmode=wait | continue | panic > > > > > > Controls the system behavior in the event of > catastrophic > > > pool failure. This condition is typically a > > > result of a loss of connectivity to the > underlying storage > > > device(s) or a failure of all devices within > > > the pool. The behavior of such an event is > determined as > > > follows: > > > > > > wait Blocks all I/O access until the device > > > connectivity is recovered and the errors are cleared. > > > This is the default behavior. > > > > > > continue Returns EIO to any new write I/O > requests but > > > allows reads to any of the remaining healthy > > > devices. Any write requests that have > yet to be > > > committed to disk would be blocked. > > > > > > panic Prints out a message to the console > and generates > > > a system crash dump. > > > > 'mmm > > > > Did not know about this setting. Nice one, but alas my current > > setting is: > > zfsboot failmode wait default > > zfsraid failmode wait default > > > > So either the setting is not working, or something else is up? > > Is waiting only meant to wait a limited time? And then panic > anyways? > > > > But then still I wonder why even in the 'continue'-case the > ZFS system > > ends in a state where the filesystem is not able to continue > in its > > standard functioning ( read and write ) and disconnects the > disk??? > > > > All failmode settings result in a seriously handicapped system... > > On a raidz2 system I would perhaps expected this to occur when the > > second disk goes into thin space?? > > > > The other question is: The man page talks about > > 'Controls the system behavior in the event of catastrophic > pool failure' > > And is a hung disk a 'catastrophic pool failure'? > > > > Still very puzzled? > > > > --WjW > > > > > > > > > > > On 2015-06-20 10:19 AM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> Found my system rebooted this morning: > > >> > > >> Jun 20 05:28:33 zfs kernel: sonewconn: pcb > 0xfffff8011b6da498: Listen > > >> queue overflow: 8 already in queue awaiting acceptance (48 > > occurrences) > > >> Jun 20 05:28:33 zfs kernel: panic: I/O to pool 'zfsraid' > appears > > to be > > >> hung on vdev guid 18180224580327100979 at '/dev/da0'. > > >> Jun 20 05:28:33 zfs kernel: cpuid = 0 > > >> Jun 20 05:28:33 zfs kernel: Uptime: 8d9h7m9s > > >> Jun 20 05:28:33 zfs kernel: Dumping 6445 out of 8174 > > >> MB:..1%..11%..21%..31%..41%..51%..61%..71%..81%..91% > > >> > > >> Which leads me to believe that /dev/da0 went out on > vacation, leaving > > >> ZFS into trouble.... But the array is: > > >> ---- > > >> NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE EXPANDSZ FRAG > CAP DEDUP > > >> zfsraid 32.5T 13.3T 19.2T - 7% > 41% 1.00x > > >> ONLINE - > > >> raidz2 16.2T 6.67T 9.58T - 8% 41% > > >> da0 - - - - - - > > >> da1 - - - - - - > > >> da2 - - - - - - > > >> da3 - - - - - - > > >> da4 - - - - - - > > >> da5 - - - - - - > > >> raidz2 16.2T 6.67T 9.58T - 7% 41% > > >> da6 - - - - - - > > >> da7 - - - - - - > > >> ada4 - - - - - - > > >> ada5 - - - - - - > > >> ada6 - - - - - - > > >> ada7 - - - - - - > > >> mirror 504M 1.73M 502M - 39% 0% > > >> gpt/log0 - - - - - - > > >> gpt/log1 - - - - - - > > >> cache - - - - - - > > >> gpt/raidcache0 109G 1.34G 107G - 0% 1% > > >> gpt/raidcache1 109G 787M 108G - 0% 0% > > >> ---- > > >> > > >> And thus I'd would have expected that ZFS would disconnect > > /dev/da0 and > > >> then switch to DEGRADED state and continue, letting the > operator > > fix the > > >> broken disk. > > >> Instead it chooses to panic, which is not a nice thing to > do. :) > > >> > > >> Or do I have to high hopes of ZFS? > > >> > > >> Next question to answer is why this WD RED on: > > >> > > >> arcmsr0@pci0:7:14:0: class=0x010400 card=0x112017d3 > > chip=0x112017d3 > > >> rev=0x00 hdr=0x00 > > >> vendor = 'Areca Technology Corp.' > > >> device = 'ARC-1120 8-Port PCI-X to SATA RAID > Controller' > > >> class = mass storage > > >> subclass = RAID > > >> > > >> got hung, and nothing for this shows in SMART.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> > <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org <mailto: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 > <mailto:freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org> > > <mailto:freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org > <mailto:freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org>>" > > > > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55874C8A.4090405>