Re: ZFS i/o error in recent 12.0
On 03/20/2018 08:50 AM, Markus Wild wrote: > > I had faced the exact same issue on a HP Microserver G8 with 8TB disks and a > 16TB zpool on FreeBSD 11 about a year ago. Hello, I will ask you the same question as I asked the OP: Has this pool had new vdevs addded to it since the server was installed? What does a "zpool status" look like when the pool is imported? Explanation: Some controllers only make a small fixed number of devices visible to the bios during boot. Imagine a zpool was booted with, say, 4 disks in a pool, and 4 more was added. If the HBA only shows 4 drives to the bios during boot, you see this error. If you think this might be relevant you need to chase down a setting called "maximum int13 devices for this adapter" or something like that. See page 3-4 in this documentation: https://supermicro.com/manuals/other/LSI_HostRAID_2308.pdf The setting has been set to 4 on a bunch of servers I've bought over the last years. Then you install the server with 4 disks, later add new disks, reboot one day and nothing works until you set it high enough that the bootloader can see the whole pool, and you're good again. /Thomas ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ZFS i/o error in recent 12.0
On 03/20/2018 12:00 AM, KIRIYAMA Kazuhiko wrote: > Hi, > > I've been encountered suddenly death in ZFS full volume > machine(r330434) about 10 days after installation[1]: > > ZFS: i/o error - all block copies unavailable > ZFS: can't read MOS of pool zroot > gptzfsboot: failed to mount default pool zroot > > FreeBSD/x86 boot > ZFS: i/o error - all block copies unavailable > ZFS: can't find dataset u > Default: zroot/<0x0>: > boot: Has this pool had new vdevs addded to it since the server was installed? What does a "zpool status" look like when the pool is imported? /Thomas ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Strange ARC/Swap/CPU on yesterday's -CURRENT
On 03/11/2018 09:43 PM, Jeff Roberson wrote: > Also, if you could try going back to r328953 or r326346 and let me > know if the problem exists in either. That would be very helpful. If > anyone is willing to debug this with me contact me directly and I will > send some test patches or debugging info after you have done the above > steps. > Hello, I am seeing this issue (high swap, arc not backing down) on two jail/bhyve hosts running 11-STABLE r325275 and r325235 - which sounds like it is earlier than the two patches you mention? The two machines are at 98 and 138 days uptime, and both are currently using more than 90% swap, and I've had to shut down non-critical stuff because I was getting out-of-swap errors. Just wanted to let everyone know, since I haven't seen any revisions as early as r325275 in the "me too" posts here. More information available on request. Best regards, Thomas Steen Rasmussen ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ipv6_addrs_IF aliases in rc.conf(5)
On 26-12-2012 10:33, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: Now, is there any interest in seeing this feature as part of future versions of FreeBSD? Could it be incorporated to HEAD and then MFC'ed to 9-STABLE if it turns out it's seen as a useful feature? Yes please! I've been waiting for this for a while, as it will greatly simplify my rc.conf on a whole bunch of jail hosts. I've spoken with bz@ about this at eurobsdcon in November 2011 and he agreed that it is a missing feature, so I suspect it is a matter of time before your patch is picked up by a committer. Thank you for your work! Best regards Thomas Steen Rasmussen ps. bz@ cc'ed so he sees this thread ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 9.0-beta3 preferring ipv4 over ipv6 with ipv6_activate_all_interfaces=YES
On 14.10.2011 10:26, Thomas Steen Rasmussen wrote: On 14-10-2011 10:09, Hiroki Sato wrote: Thanks. There is no problem with the source address selection. I don't understand this comment. I would say that I do have problems with the source address selection - otherwise it would be preferring ipv6, right ? I have tried working around this problem by adding: ip6addrctl_policy=ipv6_prefer to /etc/rc.conf but I still get the same behaviour: [tykling@tykburk ~]$ telnet www.freebsd.org 80 /dev/null Trying 69.147.83.34... Connected to red.freebsd.org. Escape character is '^]'. Connection closed by foreign host. [tykling@tykburk ~]$ telnet -6 www.freebsd.org 80 /dev/null Trying 2001:4f8:fff6::22... Connected to red.freebsd.org. Escape character is '^]'. Connection closed by foreign host. [tykling@tykburk ~]$ Does anyone know a usable workaround which I can use to make my machine prefer ipv6 over ipv4, until this problem is fixed ? Thanks! Thomas Steen Rasmussen ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 9.0-beta3 preferring ipv4 over ipv6 with ipv6_activate_all_interfaces=YES
On 16.10.2011 21:29, Hiroki Sato wrote: Thomas Steen Rasmussen tho...@gibfest.dk wrote in 4e9aa874.5070...@gibfest.dk: th On 14.10.2011 10:26, Thomas Steen Rasmussen wrote: th On 14-10-2011 10:09, Hiroki Sato wrote: th Thanks. There is no problem with the source address selection. th th I don't understand this comment. I would say that I do th have problems with the source address selection - th otherwise it would be preferring ipv6, right ? I mean the address selection is working properly. Your problem is because the default ipv6_prefer policy prefers IPv4 addresses when the source IPv6 addr is in 2002::/16, the destination IPv6 address is not in the same prefix, and IPv4 addresses can be used for the both. It is not a bug of the selection mechanism. The ipv6_prefer policy is defined in RFC 3484 2.1 and this policy chooses a src IPv6 addr in 2002::/16 only if the dest addr is also in the same prefix. You can remove the special rule for 2002::/16 by putting the following lines as /etc/ip6addrctl.conf and reboot the system: ::1/128 50 0 ::/0 40 1 #2002::/16 30 2 ::/9620 3 :::0:0/9610 4 By installing the above, IPv6 address will be preferred even if it is in 2002::/16. Hello, I understand. Thank you for your time, and sorry for the noise. Best regards Thomas Steen Rasmussen ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 9.0-beta3 preferring ipv4 over ipv6 with ipv6_activate_all_interfaces=YES
=$ipv6_prefer_obsolete_msg' + _msg='' + eval '_new=$ipv6_prefer_newvar' + _new=ip6addrctl_policy + run_rc_command start + _return=0 + rc_arg=start + [ -z ip6addrctl ] + shift 1 + rc_extra_args='' + _rc_prefix='' + eval '_override_command=$ip6addrctl_program' + _override_command='' + command='' + _keywords='start stop restart rcvar status prefer_ipv6 prefer_ipv4' + rc_pid='' + _pidcmd='' + _procname='' + [ -n '' ] + [ -z start ] + [ -n '' ] + eval 'rc_flags=$ip6addrctl_flags' + rc_flags='' + eval '_chdir=$ip6addrctl_chdir' '_chroot=$ip6addrctl_chroot' '_nice=$ip6addrctl_nice' '_user=$ip6addrctl_user' '_group=$ip6addrctl_group' '_groups=$ip6addrctl_groups' + _chdir='' _chroot='' _nice='' _user='' _group='' _groups='' + [ -n '' ] + eval + [ start != start ] + [ -n ip6addrctl_enable -a start != rcvar -a start != stop ] + checkyesno ip6addrctl_enable + eval '_value=$ip6addrctl_enable' + _value=YES + debug 'checkyesno: ip6addrctl_enable is set to YES.' + return 0 + eval '_cmd=$start_cmd' '_precmd=$start_precmd' '_postcmd=$start_postcmd' + _cmd=ip6addrctl_start _precmd='' _postcmd='' + [ -n ip6addrctl_start ] + _run_rc_precmd + check_required_before start + local _f + return 0 + [ -n '' ] + check_required_after start + local _f _args + return 0 + return 0 + _run_rc_doit 'ip6addrctl_start ' + debug 'run_rc_command: doit: ip6addrctl_start ' + eval 'ip6addrctl_start ' + ip6addrctl_start + afexists inet6 + local _af + _af=inet6 + check_kern_features inet6 + local _v + [ -n inet6 ] + eval '_v=$_rc_cache_kern_features_inet6' + _v='' + [ -n '' ] + /sbin/sysctl -n kern.features.inet6 + eval _rc_cache_kern_features_inet6=0 + _rc_cache_kern_features_inet6=0 + return 0 + [ -r /etc/ip6addrctl.conf -a -s /etc/ip6addrctl.conf ] + checkyesno ipv6_activate_all_interfaces + eval '_value=$ipv6_activate_all_interfaces' + _value=YES + debug 'checkyesno: ipv6_activate_all_interfaces is set to YES.' + return 0 + ip6addrctl_prefer_ipv6 + afexists inet6 + local _af + _af=inet6 + check_kern_features inet6 + local _v + [ -n inet6 ] + eval '_v=$_rc_cache_kern_features_inet6' + _v=0 + [ -n 0 ] + return 0 + ip6addrctl flush + ip6addrctl add ::1/128 50 0 + ip6addrctl add ::/0 40 1 + ip6addrctl add 2002::/16 30 2 + ip6addrctl add ::/96 20 3 + ip6addrctl add :::0:0/96 10 4 + checkyesno ip6addrctl_verbose + eval '_value=$ip6addrctl_verbose' + _value=NO + debug 'checkyesno: ip6addrctl_verbose is set to NO.' + return 1 + _return=1 + [ 1 -ne 0 ] + [ -z '' ] + return 1 + return 1 Best regards Thomas Steen Rasmussen ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 9.0-beta3 preferring ipv4 over ipv6 with ipv6_activate_all_interfaces=YES
On 14.10.2011 08:14, Hiroki Sato wrote: telnet www.freebsd.org 80 /dev/null [tykling@tykburk ~]$ telnet www.freebsd.org 80 /dev/null Trying 69.147.83.34... Connected to red.freebsd.org. Escape character is '^]'. Connection closed by foreign host. /Thomas ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 9.0-beta3 preferring ipv4 over ipv6 with ipv6_activate_all_interfaces=YES
On 14-10-2011 10:09, Hiroki Sato wrote: Thanks. There is no problem with the source address selection. The last questions are: % route get -inet www.freebsd.org [tykling@tykburk ~]$ route get -inet www.freebsd.org route to: red.freebsd.org destination: default mask: default gateway: fitfw interface: re0 flags: UP,GATEWAY,DONE,STATIC recvpipe sendpipe ssthresh rtt,msecmtuweightexpire 0 0 0 0 1500 1 0 % route get -inet6 www.freebsd.org [tykling@tykburk ~]$ route get -inet6 www.freebsd.org route to: red.freebsd.org destination: :: mask: default gateway: fe80::20d:f0ff:fe8d:4d23%re0 interface: re0 flags: UP,GATEWAY,DONE recvpipe sendpipe ssthresh rtt,msecmtuweightexpire 0 0 0 0 1500 1 0 % netstat -nrf inet6 [tykling@tykburk ~]$ netstat -nrf inet6 Routing tables Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire ::/96 ::1 UGRSlo0 = default fe80::20d:f0ff:fe8d:4d23%re0 UG re0 ::1 ::1 UH lo0 :::0.0.0.0/96 ::1 UGRSlo0 2002:d947:452:1::/64 link#5 U re0 2002:d947:452:1:224:8cff:fe02:de01 link#5 UHS lo0 fe80::/10 ::1 UGRSlo0 fe80::%re0/64 link#5 U re0 fe80::224:8cff:fe02:de01%re0 link#5 UHS lo0 fe80::%fwe0/64link#6 U fwe0 fe80::1e:8cff:feb6:377b%fwe0 link#6 UHS lo0 fe80::%fwip0/64 link#7 U fwip0 fe80::21e:8c00:1b6:377b%fwip0 link#7 UHS lo0 fe80::%em0/64 link#12 U em0 fe80::21b:21ff:fe32:fe80%em0 link#12 UHS lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 link#13 U lo0 ff01::%re0/32 fe80::224:8cff:fe02:de01%re0 U re0 ff01::%fwe0/32fe80::1e:8cff:feb6:377b%fwe0 U fwe0 ff01::%fwip0/32 fe80::21e:8c00:1b6:377b%fwip0 U fwip0 ff01::%em0/32 fe80::21b:21ff:fe32:fe80%em0 U em0 ff01::%lo0/32 ::1 U lo0 ff02::/16 ::1 UGRSlo0 ff02::%re0/32 fe80::224:8cff:fe02:de01%re0 U re0 ff02::%fwe0/32fe80::1e:8cff:feb6:377b%fwe0 U fwe0 ff02::%fwip0/32 fe80::21e:8c00:1b6:377b%fwip0 U fwip0 ff02::%em0/32 fe80::21b:21ff:fe32:fe80%em0 U em0 ff02::%lo0/32 ::1 U lo0 % ndp -r [tykling@tykburk ~]$ ndp -r fe80::20d:f0ff:fe8d:4d23%re0 if=re0, flags=, pref=medium, expire=28m15s I guess the second one returns route: writing to routing socket: No such process on your box. Is it correct? No, it returns the route to red.freebsd.org / 2001:4f8:fff6::22 (which is the default route of course). Extra info: [tykling@tykburk ~]$ telnet -6 www.freebsd.org 80 /dev/null Trying 2001:4f8:fff6::22... Connected to red.freebsd.org. Escape character is '^]'. Connection closed by foreign host. Thanks, Thomas ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
9.0-beta3 preferring ipv4 over ipv6 with ipv6_activate_all_interfaces=YES
Hello list, I just upgraded my home workstation to 9.0-beta3 amd64. It seems like my web browsers are preferring ipv4 over ipv6 after the upgrade, I tested Firefox and Opera. After digging into rc.conf(5) I found this bit: If ``AUTO'' is specified, it attempts to read a file /etc/ip6addrctl.conf first. If this file is found, ip6addrctl(8) reads and installs it. If not found, a policy is automatically set according to ipv6_activate_all_interfaces variable; if the variable is set to ``YES'' the IPv6-preferred one is used. Otherwise IPv4-preferred. The default value of ip6addrctl_enable and ip6addrctl_policy are ``YES'' and ``AUTO'', respectively. I already have ipv6_activate_all_interfaces=YES in /etc/rc.conf so ip6addrctl_policy _should_ be ip6addrctl_policy if I am reading this correctly. But my browsers still prefer ipv4. Is this a bug, or do the manpage need updating ? Before the upgrade to 9 I was running 8-stable which preferred ipv6 like I would expect. Thank you in advance, Thomas Steen Rasmussen ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 9.0-beta3 preferring ipv4 over ipv6 with ipv6_activate_all_interfaces=YES
On 14.10.2011 00:31, Thomas Steen Rasmussen wrote: Hello list, I just upgraded my home workstation to 9.0-beta3 amd64. It seems like my web browsers are preferring ipv4 over ipv6 after the upgrade, My laptop is also running 9.0-beta3 amd64 and I observe the same behaviour there, so this doesn't seem like an issue with a specific machine. On IRC I was advised to include h...@freebsd.org as cc in this thread. Best regards Thomas Steen Rasmussen ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
