> On 12 Jun 2019, at 22:21, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>
> 12.06.2019 12:17, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
>
>>>> The Samba 4 ZFS is from https://wiki.freebsd.org/Samba4ZFS (which I
>>>> wrote..)
>
> You should correct this page and change the line for /e
12.06.2019 12:17, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
>>> The Samba 4 ZFS is from https://wiki.freebsd.org/Samba4ZFS (which I wrote..)
You should correct this page and change the line for /etc/fstab
and use non-zero value for fsck pass number.
___
freeb
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 15:47, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
>> Am 12.06.2019 um 03:04 schrieb O'Connor, Daniel :
>> I have a small UFS partition that is the sysvol for Samba 4 (otherwise it
>> doesn't work due to ACL issues).
>
> AFAIK this was fixed by iX Systems for Samba 4.9:
>
>
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 15:51, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh I see for the passno field.. It must be non-zero it fsck won't check it
>> at all!
>
> And you don't need to change /etc/rc.d/fsck script at all.
Yeah I reverted that change now.
Thanks again :)
12.06.2019 12:17, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
>> Please show your /etc/fstab line for this UFS-inside-ZVOL and your changes
>> to rc.d/fsck.
>> Your logs do not show that fsck is started so I presume some mistake in the
>> /etc/fstab.
>> Maybe you forgot that
Hi all,
> Am 12.06.2019 um 03:04 schrieb O'Connor, Daniel :
> I have a small UFS partition that is the sysvol for Samba 4 (otherwise it
> doesn't work due to ACL issues).
AFAIK this was fixed by iX Systems for Samba 4.9:
https://jira.ixsystems.com/browse/NAS-100698
You might want to
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 14:40, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>
> 12.06.2019 8:04, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I have a small UFS partition that is the sysvol for Samba 4 (otherwise it
>> doesn't work due to ACL issues).
>>
>> I found that I usuall
12.06.2019 8:04, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a small UFS partition that is the sysvol for Samba 4 (otherwise it
> doesn't work due to ACL issues).
>
> I found that I usually have to manually fsck it on a bad reboot, even if I
> have fsck_y_enable so I added a hack
Hi,
I have a small UFS partition that is the sysvol for Samba 4 (otherwise it
doesn't work due to ACL issues).
I found that I usually have to manually fsck it on a bad reboot, even if I have
fsck_y_enable so I added a hack to /etc/rc.d/fsck to fsck -y that FS before the
normal fsck runs
Kirk McKusick wrote:
> > From: Peter Holm
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:13:00PM -0700, Kirk McKusick wrote:
> >
> >> This is indeed a bug in the calculation of the location of the last
> >> block of a file. I believe that the following patch to head will
> >> fix it.
> >>
> >> Peter,
> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 14:32:45 +0200
> From: Peter Holm
> To: Kirk McKusick
> Cc: Jamie Landeg-Jones , ja...@catflap.dyslexicfish.net,
> Warner Losh , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Replicable file-system corruption due to fsck/ufs
>
> On Fri, Ap
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:13:00PM -0700, Kirk McKusick wrote:
> > Peter Holm wrote:
> >
> >> I see this even with a single truncate on HEAD.
> >>
> >> $ ./truncate10.sh
> >> 96 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1073741824 11 apr. 06:33 test
> >> ** /dev/md10a
> >> ** Last Mounted on /mnt
> >> ** Phase
> Peter Holm wrote:
>
>> I see this even with a single truncate on HEAD.
>>
>> $ ./truncate10.sh
>> 96 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1073741824 11 apr. 06:33 test
>> ** /dev/md10a
>> ** Last Mounted on /mnt
>> ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
>> INODE 3: FILE SIZE 1073741824 BEYOND END OF
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:46 PM wrote:
> Peter Holm wrote:
>
> > I see this even with a single truncate on HEAD.
> >
> > $ ./truncate10.sh
> > 96 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1073741824 11 apr. 06:33 test
> > ** /dev/md10a
> > ** Last Mounted on /mnt
> > ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
> >
Peter Holm wrote:
> I see this even with a single truncate on HEAD.
>
> $ ./truncate10.sh
> 96 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1073741824 11 apr. 06:33 test
> ** /dev/md10a
> ** Last Mounted on /mnt
> ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
> INODE 3: FILE SIZE 1073741824 BEYOND END OF ALLOCATED FILE,
ing 1...2...3..." >> test ; truncate -s +1g test
> |
> | root@thompson# l
> | total 652
> | 4 drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel - 512 11 Apr 04:14 ./
> | 4 drwxr-x--- 3 root wheel - 512 11 Apr 04:09 ../
> | 4 drwxrwxr-x 2 root operator -
el - 512 11 Apr 04:14 ./
| 4 drwxr-x--- 3 root wheel - 512 11 Apr 04:09 ../
| 4 drwxrwxr-x 2 root operator - 512 11 Apr 04:09 .snap/
| 640 -rw-r- 1 root wheel - 9,663,676,605 11 Apr 04:14 test
|
| root@thompson# sha256 -r test > sha256
of
slowdown by background fsck on 8.X systems. My guess is that it
comes about from work done to make the I/O subsystem faster which
in turn allows fsck to have a higher impact.
For a period we were working on a kernel feature (associated with
nice) that would allow the system to throttle I/O
Hello,
we've experienced that background fsck on 8.1 degrades server performance on a
higher degree than in previous fbsd versions (6.3, 7.3; amd64).
We've noticed it after upgrading - same hardware - to a 8.1-RELEASE.
Now, performance of other services (i.e. apache, mysql) during a background
The cpu requirements are usually quite low for fsck, what your
most likely seeing is disk contention due to the amount of IO.
Personally I would recommend to consider moving to 8.2 + ZFS as
our filing system as it removes fsck from the equation, as well
as giving lots of other benefits
Andriy Gapon a...@icyb.net.ua wrote:
on 06/05/2009 14:43 Helmut Schneider said the following:
kbd1 at kbdmux0
[snip]
atkbdc0: Keyboard controller (i8042) at port 0x60,0x64 on isa0
atkbd0: AT Keyboard irq 1 on atkbdc0
kbd0 at atkbd0
atkbd0: [GIANT-LOCKED]
atkbd0: [ITHREAD]
[snip]
ukbd0: IBM
of the live CD I rebooted the machine but now
I got the same problem with /home.
How can I avoid such issues (except of not letting the machine crash)? Is
there a way to boot at least to single user mode and then run fsck (I was at
home, far away from the machine, not funny)?
Thanks, Helmut
fsck'ing / with the help of the live CD I rebooted the machine but
now I got the same problem with /home.
How can I avoid such issues (except of not letting the machine crash)?
Is there a way to boot at least to single user mode and then run fsck (I
was at home, far away from the machine
times and then the kernel paniced.
After fsck'ing / with the help of the live CD I rebooted the machine but
now I got the same problem with /home.
How can I avoid such issues (except of not letting the machine crash)? Is
there a way to boot at least to single user mode and then run fsck (I
)? Is
there a way to boot at least to single user mode and then run fsck (I was
at home, far away from the machine, not funny)?
There is no 'login' when / cannot be mounted...
fsck it. if you have another machine in there, you can try to make a
serial console. or install a ip-kvm extender ;)
I do have
and then
run fsck (I was at home, far away from the machine, not funny)?
Thanks, Helmut
if there's a problem with home you can change
PermitRoorLogin yes
in /etc/ssh/sshd_config, restart sshd, login as root, unmount home and
There is no 'login' when / cannot be mounted...
fsck it. if you have
the machine
crash)? Is there a way to boot at least to single user mode and
then run fsck (I was at home, far away from the machine, not funny)?
There is no 'login' when / cannot be mounted...
fsck it. if you have another machine in there, you can try to make a
serial console. or install
removed.
GEOM_LABEL: Label ufsid/49c3b0c4862f53b3 removed.
WARNING: R/W mount of /home denied. Filesystem is not clean - run fsck
GEOM_LABEL: Label for provider da0s2e is ufsid/49c3b0c4862f53b3.
GEOM_LABEL: Label ufsid/49c3b0c4862f53b3 removed.
WARNING: R/W mount of /home denied. Filesystem
__asm __volatile(movl %%fs:0,%0 : =r (td));
(kgdb)
Output of bt command is missing after this line :-)
Do you maybe have some problem with your /etc directory or your rc.conf
configuration? Like missing /etc/rc.d/fsck or missing/corrupted other important
rc
script. Or some such - pure
maybe have some problem with your /etc directory or your rc.conf
configuration? Like missing /etc/rc.d/fsck or missing/corrupted other
important rc script. Or some such - pure guessing here.
'mergemaster -iF' says it's fine.
--
No Swen today, my love has gone away
My mailbox stands for lorn
for the
variables of interest - kbd, kbdsw)
Do you maybe have some problem with your /etc directory or your rc.conf
configuration? Like missing /etc/rc.d/fsck or missing/corrupted other
important rc script. Or some such - pure guessing here.
'mergemaster -iF' says it's fine.
That's good
on 06/05/2009 14:43 Helmut Schneider said the following:
kbd1 at kbdmux0
[snip]
atkbdc0: Keyboard controller (i8042) at port 0x60,0x64 on isa0
atkbd0: AT Keyboard irq 1 on atkbdc0
kbd0 at atkbd0
atkbd0: [GIANT-LOCKED]
atkbd0: [ITHREAD]
[snip]
ukbd0: IBM IBM MM2, class 0/0, rev 1.10/0.01,
Andriy Gapon a...@icyb.net.ua wrote:
on 06/05/2009 14:43 Helmut Schneider said the following:
kbd1 at kbdmux0
[snip]
atkbdc0: Keyboard controller (i8042) at port 0x60,0x64 on isa0
atkbd0: AT Keyboard irq 1 on atkbdc0
kbd0 at atkbd0
atkbd0: [GIANT-LOCKED]
atkbd0: [ITHREAD]
[snip]
ukbd0: IBM
Andriy Gapon a...@icyb.net.ua wrote:
on 06/05/2009 16:21 Helmut Schneider said the following:
(kgdb) bt
#0 doadump () at pcpu.h:196
#1 0xc081d7e7 in boot (howto=260) at
/usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:418 #2 0xc081dab9 in panic
(fmt=Variable fmt is not available. ) at
Marat N.Afanasyev ama...@ksu.ru wrote:
Helmut Schneider wrote:
I do have such thing (IBM Blade Center) but I'm looking for something to
avoid the situation above. Something that lets me at least boot into
single user mode.
if you have an ip-kvm you can drop into single-user and fsck any
.
if you have an ip-kvm you can drop into single-user and fsck any disk you
have. all you need to do is to choose 'single user' from beastie-menu. or
start kernel with -s parameter
I *do* now how to enter single user mode but the kernel panic'ed *before*
the shell started. :)
The problem
into single-user and fsck any disk
you have. all you need to do is to choose 'single user' from
beastie-menu. or start kernel with -s parameter
I *do* now how to enter single user mode but the kernel panic'ed
*before* the shell started. :)
as far as I can guess from you other message panic occurs
Now that we have very convenient -C option for fsck, maybe we could use it in
fsck_y_enable part of rc.d/fsck?
--
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send
on 28/04/2009 14:34 Ivan Voras said the following:
Andriy Gapon wrote:
So I recently switched one system to have only (g)labels instead of raw
device
names in fstab and noticed that now initial (preen) fsck is performed in
parallel
on couple of filesystems where before it used
on 27/04/2009 22:16 Xin LI said the following:
Hi,
I have committed a fix for that. Thanks for reporting!
Thanks a lot!
--
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To
It is quite possible that I messed my local src repo, but this is what I see in
stable/7 r191214. fsck(8) describes -C option, fsck mentions this option in its
usage message, but:
$ fsck -C
fsck_ufs: illegal option -- C
usage: fsck_ufs [-BCFpfny] [-b block] [-c level] [-m mode] filesystem
So I recently switched one system to have only (g)labels instead of raw device
names in fstab and noticed that now initial (preen) fsck is performed in
parallel
on couple of filesystems where before it used to be sequential.
Here is a lengthy quote from fsck(8):
In preen mode, after pass 1
On 2009-04-27, Andriy Gapon wrote:
fsck(8) describes -C option, fsck mentions this option in its usage
message, but:
$ fsck -C
fsck_ufs: illegal option -- C
usage: fsck_ufs [-BCFpfny] [-b block] [-c level] [-m mode] filesystem ...
Am I he only one to see this?
r190357 probably
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andriy Gapon wrote:
It is quite possible that I messed my local src repo, but this is what I see
in
stable/7 r191214. fsck(8) describes -C option, fsck mentions this option in
its
usage message, but:
$ fsck -C
fsck_ufs: illegal option -- C
on 27/04/2009 20:49 Jaakko Heinonen said the following:
On 2009-04-27, Andriy Gapon wrote:
fsck(8) describes -C option, fsck mentions this option in its usage
message, but:
$ fsck -C
fsck_ufs: illegal option -- C
usage: fsck_ufs [-BCFpfny] [-b block] [-c level] [-m mode] filesystem ...
Am
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have committed a fix for that. Thanks for reporting!
Cheers,
- --
Xin LI delp...@delphij.nethttp://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (FreeBSD)
that are
locked? You lose both ways. There is no way to safely sync ANYTHING,
whether locked or not, without risking unexpected softupdates
inconsistencies on-media. This alone makes background fsck problematic
and risky.
-Matt
However, as a core general purpose filesystem, it seems to have flaws, not
the least of which is a re-separation of file cache and memory cache.
For me, this doesn't matter because ZFS is so much faster than UFS
overall. Even if you don't use any of its features, the latest version
does
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, a dirty filesystem should not be mounted until it's been fully
analysed/scanned by fsck. So again, people are putting faith into
UFS2+SU despite actual evidence proving that it doesn't handle all
scenarios.
Yes, I think the background fsck should be disabled
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 05:36:17PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2008-Sep-26 23:44:17 -0700, Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:35:57PM -0700, Derek Kuli??ski wrote:
As far as I know (at least ideally, when write caching is disabled)
...
FreeBSD atacontrol
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Andrew Snow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, as a core general purpose filesystem, it seems to have flaws, not
the least of which is a re-separation of file cache and memory cache.
For me, this doesn't matter because ZFS is so much faster than UFS
overall.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I certainly can't agree with this. I don't think you're measuring the
performance of the machine --- only measuring the performance of the
filesystem. When ZFS is active, memory is committed in the kernel to ZFS.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 03:31:35PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Having been bitten by problems in this area more than once, I now always
disable background fsck. Having it disabled by default has my vote too.
Is there any possibility to selectively disable / enable background fsck
reasons (it makes it more likely that you can get a crash
dump).
The kernel's flushing of the buffer cache is likely a cause of a
good chunk of the inconsitency reports by fsck, because unless
someone worked on the buffer flushing code it likely bypasses
softupdates. I know
Matthew Dillon wrote:
It can take 6 hours to fsck a full 1TB HD. It can
take over a day to fsck larger setups. Putting in a few sleeps here
and there just makes the run time even longer and perpetuates the pain.
We have a box with millions of files spread over 2TB, on a 16 disk RAID
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Also, there
exists data within the ARC (I'm always tempted to say the ARC Cache, but
that is redundant) that is also then in paging memory.
OK, but one advantage of ZFS memory consumption is under heavy write
loads, where much of the memory is used to store and
:Completely agree. ZFS is the way of the future for FreeBSD. In my
:latest testing, the memory problems are now under control, there is just
:stability problems with random lockups after days of heavy load unless I
:turn off ZIL. So its nearly there.
:
:If only ZFS also supported a network
In the last episode (Sep 30), Andrew Snow said:
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Also, there exists data within the ARC (I'm always tempted to say
the ARC Cache, but that is redundant) that is also then in paging
memory.
OK, but one advantage of ZFS memory consumption is under heavy write
Dan Nelson wrote:
That'd be handy, but at least on my system the data prefetcher isn't
really called often enough to make a difference either way (assuming
the counts are accurate). Metadata prefetch is a big win, however.
arcstats.prefetch_data_hits: 4538242 (13%)
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:40:46AM +1000, Andrew Snow wrote:
Matthew Dillon wrote:
It can take 6 hours to fsck a full 1TB HD. It can
take over a day to fsck larger setups. Putting in a few sleeps here
and there just makes the run time even longer and perpetuates the pain.
We have
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
You're the first person I've encountered who has had to disable the ZIL
to get stability in ZFS; ouch, that must hurt.
Its not so bad: this machine is doing backups with rsync, sometimes
running 50 simultaneously. This workload doesn't contain any need for
synchronous
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:44:11AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
A couple of things to note here. Well, many things actually.
Matt, I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your verbose
and thorough outline of the issues as you see them. You're the
first developer (albeit Dragonfly
or
raidz2 are used), and 4) does not need fsck. This makes ZFS powerful.
While I am very enthusiastic about ZFS (and use it for certain tasks), there
are several things preventing me from recommending it as a general-purpose
filesystem (and none of them are specific to FreeBSD's port
or
during scrubbing, 3) repair of problems in real-time (assuming raidz1 or
raidz2 are used), and 4) does not need fsck. This makes ZFS powerful.
While I am very enthusiastic about ZFS (and use it for certain tasks), there
are several things preventing me from recommending it as a general-purpose
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:30:01PM -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
However, as a core general purpose filesystem, it seems to have flaws,
not
the least of which is a re-separation of file cache and memory cache.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:35:57PM -0700, Derek Kuli??ski wrote:
Hello Jeremy,
Friday, September 26, 2008, 10:14:13 PM, you wrote:
Actually what's the advantage of having fsck run in background if it
isn't capable of fixing things?
Isn't it more dangerous to be it like that? i.e
On 2008-Sep-26 23:44:17 -0700, Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:35:57PM -0700, Derek Kuli??ski wrote:
As far as I know (at least ideally, when write caching is disabled)
...
FreeBSD atacontrol does not let you toggle such features (although cap
will show you if
, someone mentioned that write cache is
always creates problem, and it doesn't matter on OS or filesystem.
There's more below.
the data should always be consistent, and all fsck supposed to be
doing is to free unreferenced blocks that were allocated.
fsck does a heck of a lot more than
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:44:17PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:35:57PM -0700, Derek Kuli??ski wrote:
Hello Jeremy,
Friday, September 26, 2008, 10:14:13 PM, you wrote:
Actually what's the advantage of having fsck run in background if it
isn't capable
IMHO, a dirty filesystem should not be mounted until it's been fully
analysed/scanned by fsck. So again, people are putting faith into
UFS2+SU despite actual evidence proving that it doesn't handle all
scenarios.
Yes, I think the background fsck should be disabled by default
not be the default filesystem.
Do we agree?
Yes, but...
In the link you sent to me, someone mentioned that write cache is
always creates problem, and it doesn't matter on OS or filesystem.
There's more below.
the data should always be consistent, and all fsck supposed to be
doing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
IMHO, a dirty filesystem should not be mounted until it's been fully
analysed/scanned by fsck. So again, people are putting faith into
UFS2+SU despite actual evidence proving that it doesn't handle all
scenarios.
Yes, I think the background
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I believe we're in overall agreement with regards to background_fsck
(should be disabled by default).
In fact background fsck has been introduced for a good reason:
waiting for a full fsck on modern big disks is far too long.
Similarly write cache is enabled on ata disks
Hello Jeremy,
Sunday, September 21, 2008, 3:07:20 PM, you wrote:
Consider using background_fsck=no in /etc/rc.conf if you prefer the
old behaviour. Otherwise, boot single-user then do the fsck.
Actually what's the advantage of having fsck run in background if it
isn't capable of fixing
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 09:33:41PM -0700, Derek Kuli??ski wrote:
Hello Jeremy,
Sunday, September 21, 2008, 3:07:20 PM, you wrote:
Consider using background_fsck=no in /etc/rc.conf if you prefer the
old behaviour. Otherwise, boot single-user then do the fsck.
Actually what's
Hello Jeremy,
Friday, September 26, 2008, 10:14:13 PM, you wrote:
Actually what's the advantage of having fsck run in background if it
isn't capable of fixing things?
Isn't it more dangerous to be it like that? i.e. administrator might
not notice the problem; also filesystem could break even
Sep 21 08:57:54 belle fsck: /dev/ad4s1d: 1 DUP I=190
Sep 21 08:57:54 belle fsck: /dev/ad4s1d: UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY;
RUN fsck MANUALLY.
Ok, so I ran fsck manually (even with -y), but yet it refuses to clear/fix
whatever to the questions posed as fsck runs. What does this all mean
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 02:34:26PM -0700, Clint Olsen wrote:
Sep 21 08:57:54 belle fsck: /dev/ad4s1d: 1 DUP I=190
Sep 21 08:57:54 belle fsck: /dev/ad4s1d: UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE
INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY.
Ok, so I ran fsck manually (even with -y), but yet it refuses to clear/fix
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 02:59:30PM -0700, Clint Olsen wrote:
I ran in multi-user mode because the system booted. I figured that it
would have halted the boot if it was serious enough to warrant single-user
mode fsck. That has happened before.
Thanks,
-Clint
On Sep 21, Jeremy Chadwick
On Sep 21, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Re-adding mailing list to the CC list.
No, I don't think that is the case, assuming the filesystems are UFS2
and are using softupdates. When booting multi-user, fsck is run in the
background, meaning the system is fully up + usable even before the fsck
has
On Sep 21, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
You could also consider using clri(8) to clear the inode (190). Do this
in single-user while the filesystem is not mounted. After using clri,
run fsck a couple times.
Booting single-user and running fsck again seems to have corrected these
errors. For some
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 04:59:50PM -0700, Clint Olsen wrote:
Also, are there any kernel messages about ATA/SCSI disk errors or other
anomalies?
None. In fact smartctl will not do anything now. It just prints out the
quick banner message and exits immediately with no error.
With regards
On Sep 21, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
With regards to this specific item: can you provide the full smartctl
command you're using (including device), and all of the output? I have
an idea of what the problem is, but I'd need to see the output first.
# smartctl /dev/ad6
smartctl version 5.38
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 05:40:40PM -0700, Clint Olsen wrote:
On Sep 21, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
With regards to this specific item: can you provide the full smartctl
command you're using (including device), and all of the output? I have
an idea of what the problem is, but I'd need to see
On Sep 21, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
The tool is behaving how it should. Try using the -a flag.
Ok, I feel dumb now :)
Thanks,
-Clint
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
___
UDMA_CRC_Error_Count0x0032 200 200 000Old_age
Always - 0
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0008 200 200 051Old_age
Offline - 0
I think the problem lies in fsck itself. Somehow it is was unable to
deal with journaled filesystems It has failed to read them and mark
2008/8/3 Eugene Butusov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Recently I've decided to play with gjournal. Main reason was a promise of
avoiding full fsck check after unclean shutdown. I've successfuly configured
gjournal on existing filesystems (all UFS). And then it happened - my system
had a power
David N wrote:
2008/8/3 Eugene Butusov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Recently I've decided to play with gjournal. Main reason was a promise of
avoiding full fsck check after unclean shutdown. I've successfuly configured
gjournal on existing filesystems (all UFS). And then it happened - my system
had
0x0030 200 200 000Old_age Offline
- 0
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always
- 0
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0008 200 200 051Old_age Offline
- 0
I think the problem lies in fsck itself. Somehow
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Eugene Butusov wrote:
EB Did you re-create your file systems? How did you create the journal?
EB
EB eg. newfs /dev/ad4s1g.journal ?
EB
EB or did you just enable journal on the partition? via tunefs?
EB
EB I did it this way:
EB
EB /dev/ad4s1g is my /home, an
Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Eugene Butusov wrote:
EB Did you re-create your file systems? How did you create the journal?
EB
EB eg. newfs /dev/ad4s1g.journal ?
EB
EB or did you just enable journal on the partition? via tunefs?
EB
EB I did it this way:
EB
EB
Hi,
Recently I've decided to play with gjournal. Main reason was a
promise of avoiding full fsck check after unclean shutdown. I've
successfuly configured gjournal on existing filesystems (all UFS). And
then it happened - my system had a power failure. After boot, it
forced me to run fsck
On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 11:15:25PM +0200, Eugene Butusov wrote:
Aug 2 19:13:43 matrix kernel: ** /dev/ad4s1g.journal
Aug 2 19:13:43 matrix kernel:
Aug 2 19:13:43 matrix kernel: CANNOT READ BLK: 727112224
Aug 2 19:13:43 matrix kernel: CONTINUE? [yn]
Aug 2 19:13:43 matrix kernel:
Aug 2
(don't even dare telling you) and that let it give some quite random errors.
So you might want to do some real good hardware checks ;)
-- Jille
Eugene Butusov schreef:
Hi,
Recently I've decided to play with gjournal. Main reason was a promise
of avoiding full fsck check after unclean shutdown
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 11:15:25PM +0200, Eugene Butusov wrote:
Aug 2 19:13:43 matrix kernel: ** /dev/ad4s1g.journal
Aug 2 19:13:43 matrix kernel:
Aug 2 19:13:43 matrix kernel: CANNOT READ BLK: 727112224
Aug 2 19:13:43 matrix kernel: CONTINUE? [yn]
Aug 2 19:13:43
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 12:14:36AM +0200, Eugene Butusov wrote:
2) smartctl -a /dev/ad4
...
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0030 100 253 000Old_age Offline
- 0
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0008 100 253 051Old_age Offline
- 0
...
The other SMART
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 04:22:09PM +0900, Tod McQuillin wrote:
So, it's a shapshot -- is it still usable? Is it safe to delete it?
If snapinfo can't find it then it's not usable. In either case, it's
safe to delete it.
I'm not in the habit of making snapshots ... but it might have come from a
Hi all,
My server froze up tonight after a 2 month uptime running 6.3-PRERELEASE
from Dec 28 2007.
I had to fsck /home by hand because of an inconsistency fsck couldn't
repair automatically -- something to do with an unexpected softupdate
inconsistency.
After that, I ended up with some
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:43:15PM +0900, Tod McQuillin wrote:
/home/lost+found# ls -lksh
total 24432
24432 -r 1 root operator40G Mar 5 20:12 #005
It is 40G in size but only occupies 24432k on disk, so it is a sparse file.
The file permissions and sparseness matches a
on 05/03/2008 14:43 Tod McQuillin said the following:
Hi all,
My server froze up tonight after a 2 month uptime running 6.3-PRERELEASE
from Dec 28 2007.
I had to fsck /home by hand because of an inconsistency fsck couldn't
repair automatically -- something to do with an unexpected
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
