Re: ffs issue was Re: ataraid issue was Re: [netbsd-7] Critical issue with ffs+log

2016-01-25 Thread BERTRAND Joël
Hello, I've seen that FreeBSD has the same issue : https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192490 "1. (Cause) rm -Rf is being run on a path and a subdirectory concurrently. 2. (Effect) rm -Rf is failing because fts_read isn't properly filtering out certain errors like

ffs issue was Re: ataraid issue was Re: [netbsd-7] Critical issue with ffs+log

2016-01-25 Thread BERTRAND Joël
Michael van Elst a écrit : On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:03:51AM +0100, BERTRAND Joël wrote: Michael van Elst a écrit : joel.bertr...@systella.fr (=?UTF-8?Q?BERTRAND_Jo=c3=abl?=) writes: By dkctl wd0/1 setcache none save ? I will try next saturday. But if both disks are unsynchronized,

Re: ffs issue was Re: ataraid issue was Re: [netbsd-7] Critical issue with ffs+log

2016-01-25 Thread BERTRAND Joël
Hello, fsck on faulty fs returns : legendre# fsck -f raid0e ** /dev/rraid0e ** File system is already clean ** Last Mounted on /usr ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes ** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames UNALLOCATED I=5313299 OWNER=0 MODE=0 SIZE=0 MTIME=Jan 25 00:40 2016

Re: ataraid issue was Re: [netbsd-7] Critical issue with ffs+log

2016-01-22 Thread Michael van Elst
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:03:51AM +0100, BERTRAND Joël wrote: > Michael van Elst a écrit : > >joel.bertr...@systella.fr (=?UTF-8?Q?BERTRAND_Jo=c3=abl?=) writes: > > > >>By dkctl wd0/1 setcache none save ? I will try next saturday. But if > >>both disks are unsynchronized, how can I force a

ataraid issue was Re: [netbsd-7] Critical issue with ffs+log

2016-01-21 Thread BERTRAND Joël
BERTRAND Joël a écrit : Thor Lancelot Simon a écrit : On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 05:15:09PM +0100, BERTRAND Jo??l wrote: Thor Lancelot Simon a ?crit : Ugh, ataraid. If you skip the first 1MB or thereabouts, do the drives have exactly the same contents? I suppose you say that ataraid is

Re: ataraid issue was Re: [netbsd-7] Critical issue with ffs+log

2016-01-21 Thread BERTRAND Joël
Michael van Elst a écrit : joel.bertr...@systella.fr (=?UTF-8?Q?BERTRAND_Jo=c3=abl?=) writes: I suspect your explanation is correct. System tries to write on ataraid and write operation aborts as kernel panics. On next reboot, ataraid doesn't resynchronize data. If both components

Re: [netbsd-7] Critical issue with ffs+log

2016-01-20 Thread Thor Lancelot Simon
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 04:23:32PM +0100, BERTRAND Jo??l wrote: > Martin Husemann a ?crit : > >>rld0 contains two disks (wd0 and wd1). Both are clean (smartctl > >>doesn't return any error) and new. > > > >Can you please provide the full dmesg? > > > >Martin > > > > Of course. Ugh,

Re: [netbsd-7] Critical issue with ffs+log

2016-01-20 Thread BERTRAND Joël
Thor Lancelot Simon a écrit : On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 04:23:32PM +0100, BERTRAND Jo??l wrote: Martin Husemann a ?crit : rld0 contains two disks (wd0 and wd1). Both are clean (smartctl doesn't return any error) and new. Can you please provide the full dmesg? Martin

Re: [netbsd-7] Critical issue with ffs+log

2016-01-20 Thread Thor Lancelot Simon
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 05:15:09PM +0100, BERTRAND Jo??l wrote: > Thor Lancelot Simon a ?crit : > > >Ugh, ataraid. > > > >If you skip the first 1MB or thereabouts, do the drives have exactly > >the same contents? > > I suppose you say that ataraid is not usable in production... > I will try

Re: [netbsd-7] Critical issue with ffs+log

2016-01-20 Thread BERTRAND Joël
Thor Lancelot Simon a écrit : On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 05:15:09PM +0100, BERTRAND Jo??l wrote: Thor Lancelot Simon a ?crit : Ugh, ataraid. If you skip the first 1MB or thereabouts, do the drives have exactly the same contents? I suppose you say that ataraid is not usable in