Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 21:23:46 +0200 From: Edward Tomasz =?utf-8?Q?Napiera=C5=82a?= <trasz@FreeBSD.org> To: Dmitry Sivachenko <trtrmitya@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws> Subject: Re: 10/stable panic: softdep_deallocate_dependencies: dangling deps Message-ID: <20140701192346.GA9551@brick.home> In-Reply-To: <F9AA9A77-C3E9-4AFC-AAEF-304B4380FA60@gmail.com> References: <021AFCAD-7B0B-47FB-AAFF-8F7085C7E1A6@gmail.com> <op.xia61kp0kndu52@ronaldradial.radialsg.local> <F84286C1-EB0F-4049-A567-1BB0E0FD19AE@gmail.com> <20140701184749.GA8617@brick.home> <F9AA9A77-C3E9-4AFC-AAEF-304B4380FA60@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 0701T2317, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote: > > On 01 июля 2014 г., at 22:47, Edward Tomasz Napierała <trasz@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > Will ZFS fail without a panic? Or UFS without SU is the only choice? I believe ZFS will behave properly. One thing to note is the "failmode" zpool (not zfs) property. By default, it's set to "wait", which means access to data stored on a faulty disk (with no redundancy) will be blocked (paused, hanging) instead of returning IO error.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140701192346.GA9551>