From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 12 22:43:35 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39F616A4CE; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:43:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C241243D5A; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:43:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3CMkmdf040732; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:46:48 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <425C4E55.6090304@samsco.org> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:40:21 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050218 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kennaway References: <425BE215.4090406@samsco.org> <200504121951.j3CJpCCY036689@gw.catspoiler.org> <20050412221546.GB65915@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20050412221546.GB65915@xor.obsecurity.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org cc: Don Lewis cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Softupdates not preventing lengthy fsck X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:43:35 -0000 Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Don Lewis wrote: > >>On 12 Apr, Scott Long wrote: >> >>>Kris Kennaway wrote: >> >>>>I can take a transcript of the entire fsck next time if you like :-) >>>>(it ran for more than 5 hours on the 24G drive and was still going >>>>after I went to bed) >>>> >>>>Kris >>> >>>Don might not know that your workload involves creating and deleting >>>full ports/ trees repeatedly, and those trees contain hundreds of >>>tousands of inodes each. >> >>I suspected that, especially given the inode timestamps in the partial >>transcript. > > > Actually the ports trees are not recreated (they're mounted via nullfs > and accessed read-only), and the files that are created are due to > building, installing and uninstalling of ports on a plain old ufs2. > It's still a lot of files though. > Sorry, from the files that I tried to repair on my system it looked like there was a ports tree removal involved. > >>>If there is a reference count leak and those >>>deletions aren't ever being finalized, then there would be a whole lot >>>of work for fsck to do =-) Might also explain why disks have been >>>unexpectedly filling up on package machines (like mine). >> >>Sounds likely. When the disk starts looking unexpectedly full, can you >>unmount the file system or does the attempt fail with and EBUSY error? >>What happens if you fsck the file system after it has been unmounted? >>Are snapshots being used? > > > Scott was the one who tried to repair the system after this happened, > so he can probably answer it better. I'm certainly not using > snapshots myself. > > Kris > I gave up after lost+found filled up (literally) with directory inodes that couldn't be removed. Using clri on them only made fsck more upset. That filesystem is still hanging around on a disk that is powered down now, bit I'd be happy to ship it to someone for a post-mortem if desired. It's a SCSI disk, though. Scott