Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:17:22 +0400 From: Dmitry Sivachenko <trtrmitya@gmail.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?Edward_Tomasz_Napiera=C5=82a?= <trasz@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws> Subject: Re: 10/stable panic: softdep_deallocate_dependencies: dangling deps Message-ID: <F9AA9A77-C3E9-4AFC-AAEF-304B4380FA60@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140701184749.GA8617@brick.home> References: <021AFCAD-7B0B-47FB-AAFF-8F7085C7E1A6@gmail.com> <op.xia61kp0kndu52@ronaldradial.radialsg.local> <F84286C1-EB0F-4049-A567-1BB0E0FD19AE@gmail.com> <20140701184749.GA8617@brick.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01 =D0=B8=D1=8E=D0=BB=D1=8F 2014 =D0=B3., at 22:47, Edward Tomasz = Napiera=C5=82a <trasz@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >=20 > Soft updates cannot gracefully handle IO errors. It _will_ panic. > You can either prevent errors from happening by using redundancy > (ie. mirroring), or disable soft updates. That's how it works, > sorry. >=20 > In theory it would be possible to prevent this from happening; > panic here is actually to terminate the system before it corrupts > data, and in situations like this one, where the disk is no longer > accessible, it's not possible to corrupt anything. IIRC I've > actually added a workaround for that a while ago, but, as you can > see, it's not enough, and I don't understand soft updates well > enough to fix it properly. >=20 Will ZFS fail without a panic? Or UFS without SU is the only choice?=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F9AA9A77-C3E9-4AFC-AAEF-304B4380FA60>