On 04/10/2007, Nathan Kroenert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Client A > - import pool make couple-o-changes > > Client B > - import pool -f (heh)
> Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie ^Mpanic[cpu0]/thread=ffffff0002b51c80: > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 603766 kern.notice] assertion > failed: dmu_read(os, smo->smo_object, offset, size, entry_map) == 0 (0x5 > == 0x0) > , file: ../../common/fs/zfs/space_map.c, line: 339 > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie unix: [ID 100000 kern.notice] > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51160 > genunix:assfail3+b9 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51200 > zfs:space_map_load+2ef () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51240 > zfs:metaslab_activate+66 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51300 > zfs:metaslab_group_alloc+24e () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b513d0 > zfs:metaslab_alloc_dva+192 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51470 > zfs:metaslab_alloc+82 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b514c0 > zfs:zio_dva_allocate+68 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b514e0 > zfs:zio_next_stage+b3 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51510 > zfs:zio_checksum_generate+6e () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51530 > zfs:zio_next_stage+b3 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b515a0 > zfs:zio_write_compress+239 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b515c0 > zfs:zio_next_stage+b3 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51610 > zfs:zio_wait_for_children+5d () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51630 > zfs:zio_wait_children_ready+20 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51650 > zfs:zio_next_stage_async+bb () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51670 > zfs:zio_nowait+11 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51960 > zfs:dbuf_sync_leaf+1ac () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b519a0 > zfs:dbuf_sync_list+51 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51a10 > zfs:dnode_sync+23b () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51a50 > zfs:dmu_objset_sync_dnodes+55 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51ad0 > zfs:dmu_objset_sync+13d () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51b40 > zfs:dsl_pool_sync+199 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51bd0 > zfs:spa_sync+1c5 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51c60 > zfs:txg_sync_thread+19a () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ffffff0002b51c70 > unix:thread_start+8 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie unix: [ID 100000 kern.notice] > Is this a known issue, already fixed in a later build, or should I bug it? It shouldn't panic the machine, no. I'd raise a bug. > After spending a little time playing with iscsi, I have to say it's > almost inevitable that someone is going to do this by accident and panic > a big box for what I see as no good reason. (though I'm happy to be > educated... ;) You use ACLs and TPGT groups to ensure 2 hosts can't simultaneously access the same LUN by accident. You'd have the same problem with Fibre Channel SANs. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
