On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 01:03:35AM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:00:57 +0100
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Remco van Bekkum) wrote:
>
> > here? It's on an amd64, Asus m2a-vm with ati xp600, AMD BE-2350 CPU,
> > 2GB 800MHz RAM.
>
> FWIW, I have the almost the same motherboard (m2
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:00:57 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Remco van Bekkum) wrote:
> here? It's on an amd64, Asus m2a-vm with ati xp600, AMD BE-2350 CPU,
> 2GB 800MHz RAM.
FWIW, I have the almost the same motherboard (m2a-vm hdmi) with an AMD
Phenom 9500 and 4GB RAM[1]. Different disk, though. The (
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 07:24:55AM -1000, Clifton Royston wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:00:57PM +0100, Remco van Bekkum wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 04:38:46PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > After having replaced my first SATA disk with one of the same type,
> > having still the same
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:00:57PM +0100, Remco van Bekkum wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 04:38:46PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> After having replaced my first SATA disk with one of the same type,
> having still the same errors, I replaced this 1TB drive with 4x500GB
> Hitachi P7K500 in raidz
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:00:57PM +0100, Remco van Bekkum wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 04:38:46PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > Joe, I wanted to send you a note about something that I'm still in the
> > process of dealing with. The timing couldn't be more ironic.
> >
> > I decided it wou
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 04:38:46PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> Joe, I wanted to send you a note about something that I'm still in the
> process of dealing with. The timing couldn't be more ironic.
>
> I decided it would be worthwhile to migrate from my two-disk ZFS stripe
> with a non-ZFS dis
Richard Todd wrote:
Workaround: always make sure you run /etc/rc.d/hostid start in single-user
before doing any ZFS tinkering.
Good advice -- thank you.
But it still sounds like Jeremy's assessment, "it's a bug", is
accurate. ZFS could certainly check for zero hostid. If zero, it
shoul
it should /definitely/ display a diagnostic which encourages the admin
to use /etc/rc.d/hostid
Ahhh, rather, display a diagnostic which encourages the use of "zpool
import -a".
--JH
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freeb
> Henri Hennebert wrote:
> > Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 06:17:24PM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
> >>> Glad you got it back! Yes, when I was first playing with ZFS, I noti=
> ced
> >>> that booting between single and multi user mode could make the pools
> >>> "invisible". I
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 01:15:31PM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
> Joe Peterson wrote:
> > So I have started a "SeaTools" (disk scanner from Seagate) "long test" of
> > the
> > drive. The short test passed already. The results should be interesting.
> > If
> > it finds nothing wrong, I am going t
Ivan Voras wrote:
> Were both tests done in the same machine (actually, I mean the same PSU)?
Yes - I deliberately changed nothing (not even cables) before I ran the tests.
I didn't want any variables.
-Joe
___
freebsd-s
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glad you got it back! Yes, when I was first playing with ZFS, I noticed
> that booting between single and multi user mode could make the pools
> "invisible". Import seemed to bring them back...
Yeah. ZFS pools record the hostid of the system that acce
Joe Peterson wrote:
Joe Peterson wrote:
So I have started a "SeaTools" (disk scanner from Seagate) "long test" of the
drive. The short test passed already. The results should be interesting. If
it finds nothing wrong, I am going to start to wonder if I am experiencing ZFS
bugs that just happe
Henri Hennebert wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 06:17:24PM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
Glad you got it back! Yes, when I was first playing with ZFS, I noticed
that booting between single and multi user mode could make the pools
"invisible". Import seemed to bring them bac
Joe Peterson wrote:
> So I have started a "SeaTools" (disk scanner from Seagate) "long test" of the
> drive. The short test passed already. The results should be interesting. If
> it finds nothing wrong, I am going to start to wonder if I am experiencing ZFS
> bugs that just happen to look like
I performed a ZFS scrub, which finished yesterday, and no new
/var/log/messages errors were reported during that time. However, the scrub
found something interesting:
crater# zpool status -v
pool: tank
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 06:17:24PM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
Glad you got it back! Yes, when I was first playing with ZFS, I noticed
that booting between single and multi user mode could make the pools
"invisible". Import seemed to bring them back...
I did go into sin
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 06:03:33PM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
> > Wow, pretty crazy! Hmm, and yes, those LBAs do look close together.
> > Well, let me know how the smartctl output looks. I'd be curious if your
> > bad sector count rises.
>
> Ab
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
* Getting a larger power supply (usually when lots of disk are involved)
I only have two drives, so I think the PS has enough capacity in my case.
Agreed; even a 350W PSU should handle 2 disks without a problem.
I've seen power supplies with a sagging 12V rail cause th
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 06:17:24PM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
> Glad you got it back! Yes, when I was first playing with ZFS, I noticed
> that booting between single and multi user mode could make the pools
> "invisible". Import seemed to bring them back...
I did go into single-user mode and att
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 06:03:33PM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
> Wow, pretty crazy! Hmm, and yes, those LBAs do look close together.
> Well, let me know how the smartctl output looks. I'd be curious if your
> bad sector count rises.
Absolutely nada on the SMART statistics. Nothing incremented or
Glad you got it back! Yes, when I was first playing with ZFS, I noticed
that booting between single and multi user mode could make the pools
"invisible". Import seemed to bring them back...
So, is the disk toast, or can you still read anything from it (part
table, etc.)?
-Joe
Jeremy C
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 05:00:54PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> icarus# zfs list
> no datasets available
>
> This doesn't bode well, and doesn't make me happy. At all.
Pshew! I was able to get ZFS to start seeing the pool again by doing
the following: (Supposedly "zpool import" by itself wi
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> Joe, I wanted to send you a note about something that I'm still in the
> process of dealing with. The timing couldn't be more ironic.
>
> I decided it would be worthwhile to migrate from my two-disk ZFS stripe
> with a non-ZFS disk for nightly backups, to to a RAIDZ pool
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 04:38:46PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> I'll have to poke at SMART stats later to see what showed up.
So the box did indeed panic. The backtrace contained about 1.5 screens
of function calls from the stack, which makes taking a photo of the
screen a bit worthless. All
Joe, I wanted to send you a note about something that I'm still in the
process of dealing with. The timing couldn't be more ironic.
I decided it would be worthwhile to migrate from my two-disk ZFS stripe
with a non-ZFS disk for nightly backups, to to a RAIDZ pool of all 3
disks combined (since th
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:24:20PM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
> In my case, I am using only one disk (ad0) for FreeBSD, and I am only
> using one partition on this disk in my ZFS pool. So, in this case,
> unfortunately, it's not possible to tell from the fact that only ad0 is
> listed that it is s
On Jan 25, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Thomas Hurst wrote:
These numbers are quite worrysome-- they should be zero or nearly
so in a
healthy drive.
No, these are perfectly reasonable for a Seagate. I have about 12
7200.X's and all show the same sort of behavior. If they're nearly
zero
it's probabl
* Chuck Swiger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Joe Peterson wrote:
>> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED
>> WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
>> 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 114 071 006Pre-fail Always
>> - 8242294
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:46:08PM -0800, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Joe Peterson wrote:
>> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED
>> WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
>> 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 114 071 006Pre-fail Always
>>
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Joe Peterson wrote:
>> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
>> UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
>> 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 114 071 006Pre-fail
>> Always - 82422948
> [ ... ]
>> 7 See
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:46:08PM -0800, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>On Jan 25, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Joe Peterson wrote:
>> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED
>> WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
>> 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 114 071 006Pre-fail Always
>>
On Jan 25, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Joe Peterson wrote:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 114 071 006Pre-fail
Always - 82422948
[ ... ]
7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 084
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> What you've shown is usually the sign of a disk-related problem. It's
> very obvious when it's just one disk reporting DMA errors. You use ZFS,
> so chances are you have more than one disk in a pool/volume -- there's
> no indication ad1, ad4, ad6, etc. are failing, so thi
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> What you've shown is usually the sign of a disk-related problem. It's
> very obvious when it's just one disk reporting DMA errors. You use ZFS,
> so chances are you have more than one disk in a pool/volume -- there's
> no indication ad1, ad4, ad6, etc. are failing, so thi
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 06:42:04PM +0100, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > wondering if this is a known issue. Note that smartctl does not report
> > > errors logged and gives a "PASSED" to the drive. I am running at
> > > UDMA100 ATA. Also, if it matters, I am using ZFS.
>
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > wondering if this is a known issue. Note that smartctl does not report
> > errors logged and gives a "PASSED" to the drive. I am running at
> > UDMA100 ATA. Also, if it matters, I am using ZFS.
> Can you please provide output of the following:
>
> * smartctl -a /dev/
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:58:41AM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
> I've seen mention of this kind of issue before, but I never saw a
> solution, except that someone reported that a certain version of 6.x
> seemed to make it go away - accounts of this problem are a bit vague. I
> am running 7.0-RC1, a
I've seen mention of this kind of issue before, but I never saw a
solution, except that someone reported that a certain version of 6.x
seemed to make it go away - accounts of this problem are a bit vague. I
am running 7.0-RC1, and I am seeing the errors periodically, and I am
wondering if this is
39 matches
Mail list logo
