Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:19:13 -0800
From: Brooks Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Brooks Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backgroud fsck is still locking
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 05:52:38PM -0800, Kirk McKusick wrote:
Adding a two minute delay before starting background fsck
sounds like a very good idea to me. Please send me your
suggested change.
Here it is. As written it doesn't add the delay, but you can change
etc/defaults/rc.conf to do
Julian Elischer wrote:
Well, I suspected that it might not work... but I would disagree that it
was *obvious* that it would not work. This was before mount had been
run, so / was supposedly mounted (?) read-only.
I've seen ufs write back the superblock on unmounting a read-only
Bruce Evans wrote:
Er, it should be obvious that growfs can't reasonably work on the mounted
partitions. growfs.1 doesn't exist, but growfs.8 already has the warning
in a general form:
Currently growfs can only enlarge unmounted file systems. Do not
try
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:07:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backgroud fsck is still locking up system (fwd)
X-ASK-Info: Whitelist match
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backgroud fsck is still locking up system (fwd)
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 17:03:43 -0800 (PST)
CC: Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Archie Cobbs wrote:
So in summary my recommendation is to add a big warning to the
growfs(1) man page that is should not be run on the root partition,
even if you have booted single-user mode and haven't mounted / yet.
I.e., to grow a root partition, you must boot from a
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Archie Cobbs wrote:
So in summary my recommendation is to add a big warning to the
growfs(1) man page that is should not be run on the root partition,
even if you have booted single-user mode and haven't mounted / yet.
I.e.,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kirk McKusick wr
ites:
Adding a two minute delay before starting background fsck
sounds like a very good idea to me. Please send me your
suggested change.
BTW, I've been using a fsck_ffs modificaton for a while now that
does something like the disabled kernel I/O
=-=-=-=-=-=
To: Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Brooks Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backgroud fsck is still locking up system (fwd)
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:52:38 PST
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
I put a copy of / in /usr
then from the fixit, I mounted /usr as / and ran growfs from there..
the trick is to not do it while / is mounted.
/ wasn't mounted yet when I ran growfs:
I ran growfs after booting single user
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Bruce Evans wrote:
So in summary my recommendation is to add a big warning to the
growfs(1) man page that is should not be run on the root partition,
even if you have booted single-user mode and haven't mounted / yet.
I.e., to grow a root
Bruce Evans wrote:
So in summary my recommendation is to add a big warning to the
growfs(1) man page that is should not be run on the root partition,
even if you have booted single-user mode and haven't mounted / yet.
I.e., to grow a root partition, you must boot from a different
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Robert Watson wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
Er, it should be obvious that growfs can't reasonably work on the mounted
partitions. growfs.1 doesn't exist, but growfs.8 already has the warning
...
Hmm. I guess one of the interesting questions is: what
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Bruce Evans wrote:
Er, it should be obvious that growfs can't reasonably work on the mounted
partitions. growfs.1 doesn't exist, but growfs.8 already has the warning
in a general form:
Currently growfs can only enlarge unmounted file
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote:
Does the background fsck process continue to run, or does the whole
system come to a halt? If the fsck process continues to run, what
happens when it eventually finishes? Is the system still dead, or
does it come back to life? If the system does not
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:27:10AM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote:
Does the background fsck process continue to run, or does the whole
system come to a halt? If the fsck process continues to run, what
happens when it eventually finishes? Is the system
Kirk McKusick wrote:
Does the background fsck process continue to run, or does the whole
system come to a halt? If the fsck process continues to run, what
happens when it eventually finishes? Is the system still dead, or
does it come back to life? If the system does not come back to life
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 01:39 PM, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Kirk McKusick wrote:
Does the background fsck process continue to run, or does the whole
system come to a halt? If the fsck process continues to run, what
happens when it eventually finishes? Is the system still dead, or
does it
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 01:52:11PM -0500, David Rhodus wrote:
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 01:39 PM, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Kirk McKusick wrote:
Does the background fsck process continue to run, or does the whole
system come to a halt? If the fsck process continues to run, what
happens
David Rhodus wrote:
Softupdates is enabled on /usr and /var but not /.
Why does softupdates not get enabled on / , by default on the install?
I disabled softupdates on / back when having it enabled caused disk
full problems during 'make installworld,' and never re-enabled it.
FYI at this
Nate Lawson wrote:
Does the background fsck process continue to run, or does the whole
system come to a halt? If the fsck process continues to run, what
happens when it eventually finishes? Is the system still dead, or
does it come back to life? If the system does not come back to life
In the last episode (Dec 06), David Rhodus said:
Why does softupdates not get enabled on / , by default on the
install?
Softupdates updates on-disk structures in the background, and
background fsck cannot relink unreferenced files into lost+found, so
you run the risk of losing both the original
Dan Nelson wrote:
Why does softupdates not get enabled on / , by default on the
install?
Softupdates updates on-disk structures in the background, and
background fsck cannot relink unreferenced files into lost+found, so
you run the risk of losing both the original and backup copies of
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Reproduced it again just now. After pulling the plug and rebooting
I didn't touch the box. It booted normally, started background
fsck, and the HDD light was blinking as expected. After about 10
seconds, rather suddenly the HDD light stopped
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Archie Cobbs wrote:
David Rhodus wrote:
Softupdates is enabled on /usr and /var but not /.
Why does softupdates not get enabled on / , by default on the install?
I disabled softupdates on / back when having it enabled caused disk
full problems during 'make
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Archie Cobbs wrote:
To copy the 'ps' debugger output, I'd have to manually copy it all,
so here are just a few highlights:
Proc State
-
fsck_ufs 0004000 norm[SLPQ nbufbs c036e5b0][SLP]
fsck 0004002 norm[SLPQ wait c124dce8][SLP]
From: Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backgroud fsck is still locking up system (fwd)
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:57:13 -0800 (PST)
CC: Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED
Finally, one more bit of info: I have WITNESS enabled in this kernel and
get this message during boot:
/usr/src/sys/vm/uma_core.c:1330: could sleep with dc0 locked from
/usr/src/sys/pci/if_dc.c:691
if_attach does a malloc with M_WAITOK. If the attach happens inside a lock
in the driver's
, then there is
still a good reason not to use soft updates on the root filesystem.
Kirk McKusick
=-=-=-=-=
From: Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backgroud fsck is still locking up system (fwd)
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:28:52 -0800
Kirk McKusick wrote:
by the syncer who is also blocked. Could you please run the following
command on your system and send me the results:
sysctl vfs.lodirtybuffers
sysctl vfs.hidirtybuffers
sysctl vfs.numdirtybuffers
both before and after the lockup. If you cannot run
In the last episode (Dec 06), Kirk McKusick said:
The main reason for not using soft updates on the root filesystem was
because of the delay between removing files and having the space show
up. The result was that world installs on the root filesystem often
failed if the root was nearly full
From: Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backgroud fsck is still locking up system (fwd)
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:01:20 -0800 (PST)
CC: Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED
Julian Elischer wrote:
most systems follow / with their swap region..
you can boot from fixit, or picoBSD floppy
and use disklabel -e to exend the root partition
then you can use growfs to add the new space to your root fs.
Hmm.. I tried that and it didn't seem to work.
The disklabel
I put a copy of / in /usr
then from the fixit, I mounted /usr as / and ran growfs from there..
the trick is to not do it while / is mounted.
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
most systems follow / with their swap region..
you can boot from fixit, or picoBSD
Julian Elischer wrote:
I put a copy of / in /usr
then from the fixit, I mounted /usr as / and ran growfs from there..
the trick is to not do it while / is mounted.
/ wasn't mounted yet when I ran growfs:
I ran growfs after booting single user mode but before mounting
any disks.. perhaps
Kirk McKusick wrote:
OK, it looks like my hypothesis on having a small number of buffers
and running out of them is the problem. I enclose below a patch which
should check for the problem arising and help to mitigate it. I
would appreciate you dropping it into your kernel and seeing if
it
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Archie Cobbs wrote:
David Rhodus wrote:
Softupdates is enabled on /usr and /var but not /.
Why does softupdates not get enabled on / , by default on the install?
I disabled softupdates on / back when having it enabled caused disk
full problems during 'make
I suggest that we drag Thomas-Henning von Kamptz into this
discussion as he was one of the main authors of growfs. He
is copied on my reply.
Kirk McKusick
=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backgroud fsck is still locking up system (fwd)
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL
From: Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backgroud fsck is still locking up system (fwd)
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 15:23:36 -0800 (PST)
CC: Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backgroud fsck is still locking up system (fwd)
X-ASK-Info: Confirmed by User
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:27:10AM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote:
Does the background fsck process
Kirk McKusick wrote:
I suggest that we drag Thomas-Henning von Kamptz into this
discussion as he was one of the main authors of growfs. He
is copied on my reply.
Thanks.
FYI, I finally fixed things by doing what Julian suggested, which
is to copy / to /usr, reboot with /usr mounted as /,
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:22:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: backgroud fsck is still locking up system
Just rebuilt -current this morning. Background fsck is still
causing a soft lockup. I thought
Kirk McKusick wrote:
Just rebuilt -current this morning. Background fsck is still
causing a soft lockup. I thought the conclusion was we were
going to disable it for 5.0.
What do you mean by background fsck causing a soft lockup?
Is it failing? Is it deadlocking the
of `ps axl'? If not, can you break into
the debugger and get a ps output? (You will need to have the DDB
option specified in your config file).
Kirk McKusick
=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backgroud fsck is still locking up system (fwd)
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL
Kirk McKusick wrote:
Does the background fsck process continue to run, or does the whole
system come to a halt? If the fsck process continues to run, what
happens when it eventually finishes? Is the system still dead, or
does it come back to life? If the system does not come back to life
46 matches
Mail list logo
