On Mar 29, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Borja Marcos wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Does zfs receive produce any warnings? Have you tried adding -v?
> Thank you very much Ian and Carsten. Well, adding a -v gave me a clue. Turns
> out that one of the old snapshots had a clone created.
> zfs receive -v was complaining that it couldn't destroy an old snapshot,
> which wasn't visible but had been cloned (and forgotten) long ago. A truss of
> the zfs receive process shown it accessing the clone.
> So, zfs receive was doing its job, the new snapshot was applied correctly,
> but it was exiting with an exit value of 1, without printing any warnings,
> which I think is wrong.
You are correct. Both zfs and zpool have a bad case of "exit 1 if something
At Nexenta, I filed a bug against the ambiguity of the return code. You should
filing a similar bug with Oracle. In the open-source ZFS implementations, there
other work to get out of the way before properly tackling this, but that work
is in progress :-)
> I've destroyed the clone and everything has gone back to normal. Now zfs
> receive exits with 0.
> Still I'm not sure if it could be a bug, the snapshot was cloned in November
> 2011 and it had been sitting around for a long time. The pool had less than
> 20 % of free space two days ago, maybe it triggered something.
> Anyway, as I said, with the clone removed everything has gone back to normal.
> Thank you very much,
DTrace Conference, April 3, 2012,
ZFS Performance and Training
zfs-discuss mailing list