I based my fix heavily on that patch from the PR, but I rewrote it
enough that I might've made any number of mistakes, so it needs fresh
testing.
Ok, have been rebooting with the patch eery ten minutes for 24 hours
now, and it comes back up perfectly every time, so as far as I am
concerned
On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 17:21 +, Pete French wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2018 23:48, Ian Lepore wrote:
> >
> > I based my fix heavily on that patch from the PR, but I rewrote it
> > enough that I might've made any number of mistakes, so it needs fresh
> > testing. The main change I made was to make it
On 10/03/2018 23:48, Ian Lepore wrote:
I based my fix heavily on that patch from the PR, but I rewrote it
enough that I might've made any number of mistakes, so it needs fresh
testing. The main change I made was to make it a lot less noisy while
waiting (it only mentions the wait once, unless
On Sat, 2018-03-10 at 23:42 +, Pete French wrote:
> >
> > It looks like r330745 applies fine to stable-11 without any changes,
> > and there's plenty of value in testing that as well, if you're already
> > set up for that world.
> >
>
> Ive been running the patch from the PR in production si
It looks like r330745 applies fine to stable-11 without any changes,
and there's plenty of value in testing that as well, if you're already
set up for that world.
Ive been running the patch from the PR in production since the original
bug report and it works fine. I havent looked at r330745
On Sat, 2018-03-10 at 23:08 +, Pete French wrote:
> Ah, thankyou! I haven;t run current before, but as this is such an issue
> for us I;ll setup an Azure machine running it and have it reboot every
> five minutes or so to check it works OK. Unfortunately the error doesnt
> show up consisnten
Ah, thankyou! I haven;t run current before, but as this is such an issue
for us I;ll setup an Azure machine running it and have it reboot every
five minutes or so to check it works OK. Unfortunately the error doesnt
show up consisntently, as its a race condition. Will let you know if it
fails f
On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 16:19 +, Pete French wrote:
>
> >
> > That won't work for the boot drive.
> >
> > When no boot drive is detected early enough, the kernel goes to the
> > mountroot prompt. That seems to hold a Giant lock which inhibits
> > further progress being made. Sometimes progre
Eugene Grosbein eugen at grosbein.net wrote on
Mon Mar 5 12:20:47 UTC 2018 :
> 05.03.2018 19:10, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>
>>> When no boot drive is detected early enough, the kernel goes to the
>>> mountroot prompt. That seems to hold a Giant lock which inhibits
>>> further progress being made.
05.03.2018 19:10, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> When no boot drive is detected early enough, the kernel goes to the
>> mountroot prompt. That seems to hold a Giant lock which inhibits
>> further progress being made. Sometimes progress can be made by trying
>> to mount unmountable partitions on other
On 3 Mar 2018, at 13:56, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, tech-lists wrote:
>> On 03/03/2018 00:23, Dimitry Andric wrote:
...
>>> Whether this is due to some sort of BIOS handover trouble, or due to
>>> cheap and/or crappy USB-to-SATA bridges (even with brand WD and Seagate
>>> disks!),
That won't work for the boot drive.
When no boot drive is detected early enough, the kernel goes to the
mountroot prompt. That seems to hold a Giant lock which inhibits
further progress being made. Sometimes progress can be made by trying
to mount unmountable partitions on other drives, but
03.03.2018 19:56, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, tech-lists wrote:
>
>> On 03/03/2018 00:23, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>>> Indeed. I have had the following for a few years now, due to USB drives
>>> with ZFS pools:
>>>
>>> --- /usr/src/etc/rc.d/zfs2016-11-08 10:21:29.820131000 +0100
>>
On 03/03/2018 12:56, Bruce Evans wrote:
> That won't work for the boot drive.
In my case the workaround is fine because it's not a boot drive
--
J.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, tech-lists wrote:
On 03/03/2018 00:23, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Indeed. I have had the following for a few years now, due to USB drives
with ZFS pools:
--- /usr/src/etc/rc.d/zfs 2016-11-08 10:21:29.820131000 +0100
+++ /etc/rc.d/zfs 2016-11-08 12:49:52.971161000 +0
On 03/03/2018 00:23, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> Indeed. I have had the following for a few years now, due to USB drives
> with ZFS pools:
>
> --- /usr/src/etc/rc.d/zfs 2016-11-08 10:21:29.820131000 +0100
> +++ /etc/rc.d/zfs 2016-11-08 12:49:52.971161000 +0100
> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@
>
> zfs_st
16 matches
Mail list logo