Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:45:32 +0300 From: Cristian KLEIN <cristi@net.utcluj.ro> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Espen Skoglund <esk@ira.uka.de> Subject: Re: Snapshot usage guidelines (to avoid stability issues) Message-ID: <4679AE0C.5040306@net.utcluj.ro> In-Reply-To: <20070620165746.GX2268@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <18041.21810.297355.202403@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20070620165746.GX2268@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 06:26:26PM +0200, Espen Skoglund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> A couple of days ago I decided to start using snapshots on my system. >> Knowing that the functionality has been available for quite some time >> now I (apparently wrongly) assumed that it was ready for production >> use. My bad. >> >> My system, a 6-STABLE from week and a half ago, uses two 250GB >> gstriped disks and has about 4-5 snapshots on one 215GB UFS partiton. >> This morning I learned that things had gone terribly wrong during some >> nightly cronjobs, hanging the whole system. Suspecting that snapshots >> were the culprit I soon learned after some investigation that the >> snapshot functionality wasn't nearly as stable as I had hoped for. >> >> Looking at PRs and mailing lists there seems to be mainly two >> outstanding stability issues with snapshots: a) snapshotted fs running >> full, and b) deleting large amount of files on an fs with multiple >> snapshots. The former issue, while certainly annoying, one could be >> able to work around. The latter issue, on the other hand, seems more >> like a definite show stopper. >> >> Am I right in inferring that the two above cases are main issues with >> snaphots at this time, or are there other known gotchas that I have to >> look out for. > About the issue b). Are you system sources before or after 2007-06-11 > 10:53:48 UTC ? Or simply show me the version of sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_snapshot.c. > > If it is less then 1.103.2.24, see developers handbook for instruction on > reporting deadlocks. > Do you think that 1.103.2.24 might solve this http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2007-May/003161.html ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4679AE0C.5040306>