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 isn't right." At Nexenta, I filed a bug against the ambiguity of the return code. You should consider filing a similar bug with Oracle. In the open-source ZFS implementations, there is some 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. good! > Thank you very much, > > Borja. -- richard -- DTrace Conference, April 3, 2012, http://wiki.smartos.org/display/DOC/dtrace.conf ZFS Performance and Training richard.ell...@richardelling.com +1-760-896-4422
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list email@example.com http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss