> Yes, you may hit it only on hast devices creation. The workaround is to avoid
> using 'hastctl role primary all', start providers one by one instead.
Interesting to note that I just hit a lockup in hast (the discs froze
up - could not run hastctl or zpool import, and could not kill
them). I have
> The other 5% of the time, the hastd crashes occurred either when
> importing the ZFS pool, or when running multiple parallel rsyncs to
> the pool. hastd was always shown as the last running process in the
> backtrace onscreen.
This is what I am seeing - did you manage to reproduce this with the
Today one of my home servers lost power two times in a short
period of time. After that, the system just couldn't get up.
Background checks couldn't get started. The messages was how
/ /tmp /var etc...had to much errors. And at the end, always
got this: "automatic reboot will start in 15sec".
I
Not with the same behavior and it depends on what your server is doing at
the time of the power interruption. In most cases you wouldn't see anything
but ZFS is not the solution to your problem. ZFS is not designed to replace
the needs of a UPS.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Marko Lerota wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:40:11 +0100 Pete French wrote:
>> Yes, you may hit it only on hast devices creation. The workaround is to
>> avoid
>> using 'hastctl role primary all', start providers one by one instead.
PF> Interesting to note that I just hit a lockup in hast (the discs froze
PF> u
> This looks like a different problem. If you have this again please provide the
> output of 'procstat -kka'.
Will do...
-pete.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any
Marko Lerota wrote:
Today one of my home servers lost power two times in a short
period of time. After that, the system just couldn't get up.
Background checks couldn't get started. The messages was how
/ /tmp /var etc...had to much errors. And at the end, always
got this: "automatic reboot will
George Kontostanos writes:
> Not with the same behavior and it depends on what your server is doing at
> the time of the power interruption.
It was in stage of booting after first power loss.
> but ZFS is not the solution to your problem. ZFS is not designed to replace
> the needs of a UPS.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Pete French wrote:
>> The other 5% of the time, the hastd crashes occurred either when
>> importing the ZFS pool, or when running multiple parallel rsyncs to
>> the pool. hastd was always shown as the last running process in the
>> backtrace onscreen.
>
> This is w
> I've been using Opera forever. It as an old and proven browser and it runs
> natively on FreeBSD. You can have the Linux flash plugin attached to it and
> still run the native FreeBSD version. It also supports html5.
I use Conkeror on both desktop and laptop and simply cannot
imagine to go back
Marko Lerota wrote:
George Kontostanos writes:
Not with the same behavior and it depends on what your server is doing at
the time of the power interruption.
It was in stage of booting after first power loss.
but ZFS is not the solution to your problem. ZFS is not designed to replace
the ne
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 13:27 +0200, Marko Lerota wrote:
> Today one of my home servers lost power two times in a short
> period of time. After that, the system just couldn't get up.
> Background checks couldn't get started. The messages was how
> / /tmp /var etc...had to much errors. And at
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 03:29:39PM +0200, Marko Lerota wrote:
> George Kontostanos writes:
>
> > Not with the same behavior and it depends on what your server is doing at
> > the time of the power interruption.
>
> It was in stage of booting after first power loss.
>
> > but ZFS is not the so
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:56:09PM +0200, Christian Walther wrote:
> 2011/3/29 Nikola Pavlović :
> > As far as eye candy goes, I assure you KDE Plasma bells and whistles
> > (compositing etc.) work just fine even on a 9 year old Pentium 4 w/ 1GB
> > RAM and an NVidia GeForce 6200. I'm actually ama
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 03:29:39PM +0200, Marko Lerota wrote:
George Kontostanos writes:
> Not with the same behavior and it depends on what your server is doing
> at
> the time of the power interruption.
It was in stage of booting after first power loss.
> but ZFS is not the solution to yo
On Fri, April 1, 2011 6:29 am, Marko Lerota wrote:
> George Kontostanos writes:
>
>
>> Not with the same behavior and it depends on what your server is doing at
>> the time of the power interruption.
>
> It was in stage of booting after first power loss.
>
>
>> but ZFS is not the solution to your
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Chris H wrote:
> On Fri, April 1, 2011 6:29 am, Marko Lerota wrote:
> > I read that ZFS don't need fsck because the files are always consistent
> on
> filesystem regardless
> > of power loses. That the corruption can occur only if disks are damaged.
> But not
> >
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 01:33:48AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to setup a new geli disk and i'm seeing what looks like a memory
> leak.
> After initializing the device i've tried to do the dd command from /dev/random
> like this one:
>
> dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/da0
On 1 April 2011 19:38, Adam Vande More wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Chris H wrote:
>
>> On Fri, April 1, 2011 6:29 am, Marko Lerota wrote:
>> > I read that ZFS don't need fsck because the files are always consistent
>> on
>> filesystem regardless
>> > of power loses. That the corrup
On 4/1/2011 8:47 AM, Stefan `Sec` Zehl wrote:
If you want to get rid of the reboot loop, set:
background_fsck="NO"
Then it will either come up, or ask for help if anything fails.
If you absolutely want the server to come up, you can set this
fsck_y_enable="YES"
+1
--
Nothin' ever
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 19:43:54 +0200 Victor Balada Diaz wrote:
VBD> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 01:33:48AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm trying to setup a new geli disk and i'm seeing what looks like a memory
>> leak.
>> After initializing the device i've tried to do the d
On Fri, April 1, 2011 10:38 am, Adam Vande More wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Chris H wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, April 1, 2011 6:29 am, Marko Lerota wrote:
>>
>>> I read that ZFS don't need fsck because the files are always consistent
>>>
>> on filesystem regardless
>>> of power loses. Tha
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Chris H wrote:
> >
> Greetings,
> Not to sound disagreeable, but
> if I interrupt the power during a disk write, no amount of ZFS will insure
> that
> the hardware completes it's write without electricity. Nor will any amount
> of
> ZFS prevent data corruption as
The core of the issue here comes down to two things:
First, a power loss to the drive will cause the drive's dirty write cache
to be lost, that data will not make it to disk. Nor do you really want
to turn of write caching on the physical drive. Well, you CAN turn it
off, but
24 matches
Mail list logo
