From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 4 02:22:39 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8761D360 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 02:22:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com [69.62.255.118]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62266BD5 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 02:22:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.tristatelogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F253ADFA for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 19:22:26 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CAM status: CCB request completed with an error In-Reply-To: <20140403074009.GA73196@neutralgood.org> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:22:26 -0700 Message-ID: <7787.1396578146@server1.tristatelogic.com> X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 02:22:39 -0000 In message <20140403074009.GA73196@neutralgood.org>, kpneal@pobox.com wrote: >On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 03:48:21AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> >> What the bleep is a "CCB request", and why would it fail, over and over and >over >> again, ad infinitum? > >Dunno. Try asking on either one of the freebsd-scsi or freebsd-geom lists. OK. I will. One footnote to my earlier rant: The problems all seem to be arising from my USB sticks... *not* from ordinary (sATA) drives as I had previously believed. I have had _many_ problems, over time, with the FreeBSD USB driver. I guess this is just another one. Sigh. >> Did somebody fail to implement some logic that >> would recognize when there have been several thousand such errors already... >Well, syslogd does eliminate duplicate messages with a message about having >avoiding repeating itself X number of times. Yes. >But that only works for log >lines that are a single line long. Yes. >It would be a useful addition to have syslogd recognize repeated groups >of log lines and give them the same treatment. I disagree. I believe that it would be a helluva lot more useful, in this case, if the USB driver just simply kept track of which devices are "failing" as far as it is concerned, and then just simply avoided per- forming an *infinite* set of retries on those, all in rapid succession. Performing such a set of retries... in rapid succession... is arguably stupid, wasteful, and potentially hazardous to the health of innumerable /var partitions, worldwide. (And by the way, there isn't a damn thing wrong with my USB sticks. *They* are perfectly fine. It is the ______ FreeBSD USB driver that is screwing up. It apparently gets confused easily... and then just stays that way.) >It would be a shame to have various subsystems in the kernel have to roll >their own. I would argue that *every* program and/or driver should, ideally, make at least some effort *on its own* to avoid generating a infinite number of syslog messages, particularly if all the messages are relating directly to a single allegedly syslog-worthy event, as in the case that I began this rant about. It seems to me that this is just a matter of common courtesy... or perhaps "uncommon" would be more accurate. Infinite sequences of syslog messages, occurring on unattended machines, lead inevitably (and sometimes rapidly) to "/var: No space left on device". This is an undesirable outcome of the highest order. Regards, rfg