Re: Caveat emptor: Beware of ZFS on HEAD

[Chargen]

Thumbs up, gentlemen!

Regards,
Edwin

-- 
Deze e-mail en de inhoud is vertrouwelijk en uitsluitend bestemd voor de
geadresseerde(n). Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent van deze e-mail
verzoeken wij u dit direct door te geven aan de verzender door middel van
een reply e-mail en de ontvangen e-mail uit uw systemen te verwijderen. Als
u geen geadresseerde bent, is het niet toegestaan om kennis te nemen van de
inhoud, deze te kopieren, te verspreiden, bekend te maken aan derden noch
anderszins te gebruiken.

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action
taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful. Please notify us immediately if you have received it in error by
reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Andriy Gapon  wrote:

> On 12/07/2017 23:20, Peter Wemm wrote:
> > We mostly run HEAD in the freebsd.org cluster.  Sometime in the last
> few weeks
> > an ugly zfs problem has surfaced. If a redundant volume is degraded, zfs
> > panics on boot.  If a drive fails while running, or is manually put
> offline, zfs
> > panics the same way.
> >
> > I do not have a smoking gun, but I am suspicious of the June 28th commits
> > (starting at r320156) and their follow-ups. eg: r320452.
> >
> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/220691
> >
> > I believe single disk systems will *not* be affected by this - the panic
> only
> > happens when a raidz (and presumably mirror) degrades.  Your laptop etc
> should
> > be fine.
> >
> > I apologize for being vague - I do not know more. Folks running HEAD
> should
> > take appropritate precautions (eg: keeping a known-good kernel.old and
> modules
> > around).  This is always advisable when running HEAD anyway,
> particularly so
> > now.  For us, a kernel.old from June 18th worked fine.
> >
>
> My apologies for the bug.
> Everyone affected, could you please test the patch from the bug report?
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220691#c3
> Thank you!
>
> --
> Andriy Gapon
> ___
> 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"
>
___
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: Caveat emptor: Beware of ZFS on HEAD

[Andriy Gapon]

On 12/07/2017 23:20, Peter Wemm wrote:
> We mostly run HEAD in the freebsd.org cluster.  Sometime in the last few 
> weeks 
> an ugly zfs problem has surfaced. If a redundant volume is degraded, zfs 
> panics on boot.  If a drive fails while running, or is manually put offline, 
> zfs 
> panics the same way.
> 
> I do not have a smoking gun, but I am suspicious of the June 28th commits 
> (starting at r320156) and their follow-ups. eg: r320452.
> 
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/220691
> 
> I believe single disk systems will *not* be affected by this - the panic only 
> happens when a raidz (and presumably mirror) degrades.  Your laptop etc 
> should 
> be fine.
> 
> I apologize for being vague - I do not know more. Folks running HEAD should 
> take appropritate precautions (eg: keeping a known-good kernel.old and 
> modules 
> around).  This is always advisable when running HEAD anyway, particularly so 
> now.  For us, a kernel.old from June 18th worked fine.
> 

My apologies for the bug.
Everyone affected, could you please test the patch from the bug report?
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220691#c3
Thank you!

-- 
Andriy Gapon
___
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"

Caveat emptor: Beware of ZFS on HEAD

[Peter Wemm]

We mostly run HEAD in the freebsd.org cluster.  Sometime in the last few weeks 
an ugly zfs problem has surfaced. If a redundant volume is degraded, zfs 
panics on boot.  If a drive fails while running, or is manually put offline, 
zfs 
panics the same way.

I do not have a smoking gun, but I am suspicious of the June 28th commits 
(starting at r320156) and their follow-ups. eg: r320452.

https://bugs.freebsd.org/220691

I believe single disk systems will *not* be affected by this - the panic only 
happens when a raidz (and presumably mirror) degrades.  Your laptop etc should 
be fine.

I apologize for being vague - I do not know more. Folks running HEAD should 
take appropritate precautions (eg: keeping a known-good kernel.old and modules 
around).  This is always advisable when running HEAD anyway, particularly so 
now.  For us, a kernel.old from June 18th worked fine.

-- 
Peter Wemm - pe...@wemm.org; pe...@freebsd.org; pe...@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV
UTF-8: for when a ' or ... just won\342\200\231t do\342\200\246

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Beware, ZFS on head!

[Peter Wemm]

Depending on how you build it, you may either get a kernel compile failure (if 
you build zfs into the core kernel with options ZFS), or possibly even an 
invalid zfs.ko with an undefined symbol that can't be used at reboot time.  Be 
exceptionally careful.

I suggest, before rebooting, do a 
# nm /boot/kernel/zfs.ko | grep atomic_dec

If you see:
  U atomic_dec_64_nv
.. you will have a sub-optimal reboot experience and you may want to save your 
kernel.old.

(no output = you're fine = carry on!)

-- 
Peter Wemm - pe...@wemm.org; pe...@freebsd.org; pe...@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV
UTF-8: for when a ' or ... just won\342\200\231t do\342\200\246

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: ZFS on HEAD

[Glen Barber]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:08:41PM +0200, Sami Halabi wrote:
 I tried to follow:
 http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/filesystems-zfs.html
 
 to recompile the kernel with KVA_PAGES
 and i couldn't compile.
 
 any ideas why this?
 

What was the error?

Glen



pgpSAFywn5RwW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ZFS on HEAD

[Sami Halabi]

/usr/src/sys/amd64/confSAMI: unknown option KVA_PAGES

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Glen Barber g...@freebsd.org wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:08:41PM +0200, Sami Halabi wrote:
  I tried to follow:
 
 http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/filesystems-zfs.html
 
  to recompile the kernel with KVA_PAGES
  and i couldn't compile.
 
  any ideas why this?
 

 What was the error?

 Glen




-- 
Sami Halabi
Information Systems Engineer
NMS Projects Expert
FreeBSD SysAdmin Expert
___
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: ZFS on HEAD

[Glen Barber]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:31:41PM +0200, Sami Halabi wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Glen Barber g...@freebsd.org wrote:
  On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:08:41PM +0200, Sami Halabi wrote:
   I tried to follow:
  
  http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/filesystems-zfs.html
  
   to recompile the kernel with KVA_PAGES
   and i couldn't compile.
  
   any ideas why this?
  
 
  What was the error?
 
 
 /usr/src/sys/amd64/confSAMI: unknown option KVA_PAGES
 

KVA_PAGES is not a valid option for amd64 kernel configurations.

It is only needed/recommended for i386 and pc98 architectures.

Glen



pgpHbbrIEcKJU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ZFS on HEAD

[Sami Halabi]

got it, I thought amd64 is i386 with 64 bit, seems i was wrong in termenlogy
Thanks a lot

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Glen Barber g...@freebsd.org wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:31:41PM +0200, Sami Halabi wrote:
  On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Glen Barber g...@freebsd.org wrote:
   On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:08:41PM +0200, Sami Halabi wrote:
I tried to follow:
   
  
 http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/filesystems-zfs.html
   
to recompile the kernel with KVA_PAGES
and i couldn't compile.
   
any ideas why this?
   
  
   What was the error?
  
 
  /usr/src/sys/amd64/confSAMI: unknown option KVA_PAGES
 

 KVA_PAGES is not a valid option for amd64 kernel configurations.

 It is only needed/recommended for i386 and pc98 architectures.

 Glen




-- 
Sami Halabi
Information Systems Engineer
NMS Projects Expert
FreeBSD SysAdmin Expert
___
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: ZFS on HEAD

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:31:41PM +0200 I heard the voice of
Sami Halabi, and lo! it spake thus:
 /usr/src/sys/amd64/confSAMI: unknown option KVA_PAGES

You're using amd64, not i386; you don't need to mess with KVA_PAGES.

In fact, you probably don't need to tune anything on amd64, unless
you've got either very little or very huge physical memory.


-- 
Matthew Fuller (MF4839)   |  fulle...@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
   On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
___
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: ZFS on HEAD

[Sami Halabi]

Hi,

what count for little, and what count for huge.
is there any documented tunings needed for both cases? if not I'd
appreciate it much if you explain the tunungs needed and what they do.

Sami

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Matthew D. Fuller fulle...@over-yonder.net
 wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:31:41PM +0200 I heard the voice of
 Sami Halabi, and lo! it spake thus:
  /usr/src/sys/amd64/confSAMI: unknown option KVA_PAGES

 You're using amd64, not i386; you don't need to mess with KVA_PAGES.

 In fact, you probably don't need to tune anything on amd64, unless
 you've got either very little or very huge physical memory.


 --
 Matthew Fuller (MF4839)   |  fulle...@over-yonder.net
 Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.




-- 
Sami Halabi
Information Systems Engineer
NMS Projects Expert
FreeBSD SysAdmin Expert
___
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: ZFS on HEAD

[Andriy Gapon]

on 28/09/2012 22:37 Sami Halabi said the following:
 got it, I thought amd64 is i386 with 64 bit, seems i was wrong in termenlogy

Yes, we refer to the general platform as x86.  i386 is 32-bit x86 and amd64 is
64-bit x86.

-- 
Andriy Gapon
___
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: ZFS on HEAD

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:44:08PM +0200 I heard the voice of
Sami Halabi, and lo! it spake thus:
 
 what count for little, and what count for huge.

Off the top of my head, I'd say less than 1 gig (maybe 2) or more than
256.  With very little, you may need to start looking at some of the
i386 tuning to things to scale back.  But anywhere in the middle the
defaults should work fine (I'm sure there are gains to be had from
working at tuning, but probably not huge and probably very dependent
on your particular hardware and workloads).


-- 
Matthew Fuller (MF4839)   |  fulle...@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
   On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
___
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: ZFS on HEAD

[Niclas Zeising]

On 2012-09-28 21:49, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:44:08PM +0200 I heard the voice of
 Sami Halabi, and lo! it spake thus:

 what count for little, and what count for huge.
 
 Off the top of my head, I'd say less than 1 gig (maybe 2) or more than
 256.  With very little, you may need to start looking at some of the
 i386 tuning to things to scale back.  But anywhere in the middle the
 defaults should work fine (I'm sure there are gains to be had from
 working at tuning, but probably not huge and probably very dependent
 on your particular hardware and workloads).
 
 

Just as a measuring point, I managed to run ZFS on an moderately busy
FTP server with 2GB while waiting for replacement RAM.  It worked, but
is perhaps not the best approach.  Less than 4 or even 8GB ram is
probably not recommended these days, especially since RAM is resonably
cheap.
Regards!
-- 
Niclas
P.S.
The handbook should perhaps be slightly updated wrt ZFS, at least to
clarify that tuning is only needed on i386 in the general case, and that
you're usually better off running ZFS on an amd64 machine if you can
choose.  I'll look into it tomorrow...
___
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