Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:13:09 +0100 From: Niclas Zeising <zeising@daemonic.se> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Bartosz Stec <bartosz.stec@it4pro.pl>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> Subject: Re: problem booting to multi-vdev root pool [Was: kern/150503: [zfs] ZFS disks are UNAVAIL and corrupted after reboot] Message-ID: <50A66615.9060906@daemonic.se> In-Reply-To: <50A65F83.5000604@FreeBSD.org> References: <509D1DEC.6040505@FreeBSD.org> <50A27243.408@madpilot.net> <50A65F83.5000604@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/16/12 16:45, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 13/11/2012 18:16 Guido Falsi said the following: >> My idea, but is just a speculation, i could be very wrong, is that the geom >> tasting code has some problem with multiple vdev root pools. > > Guido, > > you are absolutely correct. The code for reconstructing/tasting a root pool > configuration is a modified upstream code, so it inherited a limitation from it: > the support for only a single top-level vdev in a root pool. > I have an idea how to add the missing support, but it turned out not to be > something that I can hack together in couple of hours. > > So, instead I wrote the following patch that should fall back to using a root pool > configuration from zpool.cache (if it's present there) for a multi-vdev root pool: > http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/zfs-spa-multi_vdev_root_fallback.diff > > The patch also fixes a minor (single-time) memory leak. > > Guido, Bartosz, > could you please test the patch? > > Apologies for the breakage. > Just to confirm, since I am holding back an update pending on this. If I have a raidz root pool, with three disks, like this: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM zroot ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 gpt/disk0 ONLINE 0 0 0 gpt/disk1 ONLINE 0 0 0 gpt/disk2 ONLINE 0 0 0 Then I'm fine to update without issues. the problem is only if, as an example, you have a mirror with striped disks, or a stripe with mirrored disks, which it seems to me the original poster had. Am I correct, and therefore ok to update? Regards! -- Niclas Zeising
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50A66615.9060906>