On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
DM KK I'll try to build DDB kernel tomorrow evening to check. Which
commands should I
DM KK issue in ddb ?
DM KK
DM KK 'show lockedvnods', 'ps' and 'alltrace' are important.
DM
DM Well, common usage pattern does not lead to lock today. I made
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK I'll try to build DDB kernel tomorrow evening to check. Which commands
should I
KK issue in ddb ?
KK
KK 'show lockedvnods', 'ps' and 'alltrace' are important.
Well, common usage pattern does not lead to lock today. I made some
snapshots on
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK What people are seeing now must be some other problem that I wan't
KK able to reproduce.
KK
KK Once I hear back from someone who can reproduce it with debugging
KK enabled (I'm also trying) we can try to fix it.
Please try to simulate user who is
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 01:43:42PM +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK What people are seeing now must be some other problem that I wan't
KK able to reproduce.
KK
KK Once I hear back from someone who can reproduce it with debugging
KK enabled (I'm
Sorry Dmitry, you'll get this again since I forgot to reply to the
list the first time.
Quoting Dmitry Morozovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK What people are seeing now must be some other problem that I wan't
KK able to reproduce.
KK
KK Once I hear back
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 04:36:17PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
+ On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 01:43:42PM +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
+ On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
+
+ KK What people are seeing now must be some other problem that I wan't
+ KK able to reproduce.
+ KK
+ KK Once
Chris Dillon wrote:
I had problems with snapshots and hangs in 5.x. For that, a daily
reboot would keep the problems at bay. I upgraded to 6.0 and the
problems completely disappeared. I kept 6.0-STABLE running for weeks.
Somewhere along the line, as 6.1 approached, similar problems
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 06:42:28PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 04:36:17PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
+ On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 01:43:42PM +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
+ On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
+
+ KK What people are seeing now must be
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:23:43AM -0600, secmgr wrote:
Chris Dillon wrote:
I had problems with snapshots and hangs in 5.x. For that, a daily
reboot would keep the problems at bay. I upgraded to 6.0 and the
problems completely disappeared. I kept 6.0-STABLE running for weeks.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:46:03PM +0200, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
It could also be viewed as irresponsible to have servers in production
_without_ a corresponding test system to test proposed changes on.
True, but some us are blessed with a collection of assorted ancient cast
off servers, and
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK KK I'll try to build DDB kernel tomorrow evening to check. Which
commands should I
KK KK issue in ddb ?
KK KK
KK KK 'show lockedvnods', 'ps' and 'alltrace' are important.
KK
KK Last note: are these lines added enough? Or some are unneeded?
Quoting Dmitry Morozovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK Also you should add DEBUG_LOCKS and DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS on the off chance
KK they catch the problem.
I got one thought about the source of these hangs/crashes: this
machine is the
only one with actively
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 08:09:32AM -0500, Chris Dillon wrote:
Quoting Dmitry Morozovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK Also you should add DEBUG_LOCKS and DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS on the off chance
KK they catch the problem.
I got one thought about the source of
Quoting Kostik Belousov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm going to update to the latest 6.1 code this evening and enable
INVARIANTS, WITNESS, and the two DEBUG_LOCKS options to the kernel to
see if it catches anything.
Please, also add DDB to the kernel and show the result of the
show lockedvnodes
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Chris Dillon wrote:
CD Please, also add DDB to the kernel and show the result of the
CD show lockedvnodes
CD alltrace
CD ps
CD in the DDB after the deadlock, as asked by Kris Kennaway earlier
CD in this thread !
CD
CD
CD OK, I've added DDB, but all of the information
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 07:06:11PM +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Chris Dillon wrote:
CD Please, also add DDB to the kernel and show the result of the
CD show lockedvnodes
CD alltrace
CD ps
CD in the DDB after the deadlock, as asked by Kris Kennaway earlier
CD
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Kostik Belousov wrote:
KB I just made lab machine with serial console, compile minimal kernel with
quotas
KB and KDB+WITNESS, and immediately after ``quotacheck /var quotaon
/var'' got
KB
KB kdb_backtrace(d663aba0,c051f402,c05f7da3,c05fe731,c32cb414) at
KB
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 08:05:25PM +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Kostik Belousov wrote:
KB I just made lab machine with serial console, compile minimal kernel
with quotas
KB and KDB+WITNESS, and immediately after ``quotacheck /var quotaon
/var'' got
KB
KB
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:39:09PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Obviously, revisions 1.78, 1.79 of the sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c
shall be MFCed. Try this patch (note, I does not tested it):
WTF, I could have sworn I merged that! Yes, this patch is needed.
However, I don't think it's the cause
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 08:09:32AM -0500, Chris Dillon wrote:
Quoting Dmitry Morozovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK Also you should add DEBUG_LOCKS and DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS on the off chance
KK they catch the problem.
I got one thought about the source of
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK OK, I wish you and others had responded to my call for testing a month
KK or more ago :) All (both) of the responses indicated that the quota
KK problems had been fixed following changes made then. At this point it
KK may be too late for 6.x, but
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK OK, I wish you and others had responded to my call for testing a month
KK or more ago :) All (both) of the responses indicated that the quota
KK problems had been fixed following
Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK OK, I wish you and others had responded to my call for testing a month
KK or more ago :) All (both) of the responses indicated that the quota
KK problems had been fixed following changes made then. At this point it
KK may be
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 05:02:00PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK OK, I wish you and others had responded to my call for testing a month
KK or more ago :) All (both) of the responses indicated that the quota
KK problems had
Kris Kennaway wrote:
This is true, but I hope you recognise that a good part of the
responsibility for this falls on the users when asked to test proposed
fixes. If the developers are not aware of remaining problems they
can't reasonably be expected to fix them :-)
Indeed, but the
Mike Jakubik wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
This is true, but I hope you recognise that a good part of the
responsibility for this falls on the users when asked to test proposed
fixes. If the developers are not aware of remaining problems they
can't reasonably be expected to fix them :-)
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 05:37:37PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
This is true, but I hope you recognise that a good part of the
responsibility for this falls on the users when asked to test proposed
fixes. If the developers are not aware of remaining problems they
can't
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:37:37 -0400
Mike Jakubik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, but the developers should also realize that a lot of users
have servers in production and can not afford the downtime, or simply
don't have the resources to test. I think the developers should also
spend a little
On Tuesday 25 April 2006 18:37, Mike Jakubik wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
This is true, but I hope you recognise that a good part of the
responsibility for this falls on the users when asked to test proposed
fixes. If the developers are not aware of remaining problems they
can't
Kris Kennaway said the following on 4/25/06 9:22 AM:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:39:09PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Obviously, revisions 1.78, 1.79 of the sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c
shall be MFCed. Try this patch (note, I does not tested it):
WTF, I could have sworn I merged that! Yes, this
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:12:10PM -0700, Atanas wrote:
Kris Kennaway said the following on 4/25/06 9:22 AM:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:39:09PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Obviously, revisions 1.78, 1.79 of the sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c
shall be MFCed. Try this patch (note, I does not tested
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
DM kKK one of my servers had to be rebooted uncleanly and then I have
backgrounded
DM KK fsck locked for more than an our in snaplk:
DM KK
DM KK 742 root 1 -44 1320K 688K snaplk 0:02 0.00%
fsck_ufs
DM KK
DM KK File system
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:04:57PM +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
DM kKK one of my servers had to be rebooted uncleanly and then I have
backgrounded
DM KK fsck locked for more than an our in snaplk:
DM KK
DM KK 742 root 1 -4
Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
one of my servers had to be rebooted uncleanly and then I have backgrounded
fsck locked for more than an our in snaplk:
Given that this system came down uncleanly, have you tried starting up
in single-user and manually doing an fsck (without '-p') on the
afflicted
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK What bothers me most is that it is the only machine reproducibly hangs in
KK snapshots, and it did not hang before RELENG_5 - RELENG_6 upgrade. Other
KK RELENG_6 machines do snapshot backups flawlessly (knock-on-wood!)
KK
KK Are you quite certain
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Michael Butler wrote:
MB Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
MB one of my servers had to be rebooted uncleanly and then I have
MB backgrounded fsck locked for more than an our in snaplk:
MB
MB Given that this system came down uncleanly, have you tried starting up in
MB single-user
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:24:07AM +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK What bothers me most is that it is the only machine reproducibly hangs
in
KK snapshots, and it did not hang before RELENG_5 - RELENG_6 upgrade.
Other
KK RELENG_6 machines
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK I'll try to build DDB kernel tomorrow evening to check. Which commands
should I
KK issue in ddb ?
KK
KK 'show lockedvnods', 'ps' and 'alltrace' are important.
Last note: are these lines added enough? Or some are unneeded?
options KDB
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:45:08AM +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
KK I'll try to build DDB kernel tomorrow evening to check. Which commands
should I
KK issue in ddb ?
KK
KK 'show lockedvnods', 'ps' and 'alltrace' are important.
Last note:
Colleagues,
one of my servers had to be rebooted uncleanly and then I have backgrounded
fsck locked for more than an our in snaplk:
742 root 1 -44 1320K 688K snaplk 0:02 0.00% fsck_ufs
File system in question is 200G gmirror on SATA. Usually making a snapshot
(e.g., for
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 07:35:37PM +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
Colleagues,
one of my servers had to be rebooted uncleanly and then I have backgrounded
fsck locked for more than an our in snaplk:
742 root 1 -44 1320K 688K snaplk 0:02 0.00% fsck_ufs
File system in
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
kKK one of my servers had to be rebooted uncleanly and then I have
backgrounded
KK fsck locked for more than an our in snaplk:
KK
KK 742 root 1 -44 1320K 688K snaplk 0:02 0.00% fsck_ufs
KK
KK File system in question is 200G
42 matches
Mail list logo
