From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 4 02:19:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B912B16A4CE; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:19:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from bremen.shuttle.de (bremen.shuttle.de [194.95.249.251]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B1543D5E; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:18:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from schweikh@schweikhardt.net) Received: by bremen.shuttle.de (Postfix, from userid 10) id C31E0FFF7; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:18:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from hal9000.schweikhardt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i04AIoFO001743; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:18:50 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from schweikh@hal9000.schweikhardt.net) Received: (from schweikh@localhost)i04AIoC9001742; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:18:50 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from schweikh) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:18:50 +0100 From: Jens Schweikhardt To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" Message-ID: <20040104101850.GA1169@schweikhardt.net> References: <20040103160313.GA54680@schweikhardt.net> <20040104031138.GE7617@wantadilla.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040104031138.GE7617@wantadilla.lemis.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fsck(8), /etc/fstab and vinum X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:19:03 -0000 Grog, On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:41:38PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: # On Saturday, 3 January 2004 at 17:03:13 +0100, Jens Schweikhardt wrote: # > hello, world\n # > # > it appears fsck can't determine the file system type for ufs on vinum # > partitions if there is no entry in /etc/fstab, # # Yes, there are difficulties, depending on the name of the volume. /dev/vinum/Ports in this case. # > even when I use fsck -T ufs:ro /dev/vinum/foo. # # Hmm. I haven't tried this. It works fine with -t ufs, at least on # -CURRENT. Do you have trouble with that? Yes. On -CURRENT -T ufs: only works when /etc/fstab already has an entry for /dev/vinum/Ports. Starting without an entry in /etc/fstab: root@hal9000: # uname -a FreeBSD hal9000.schweikhardt.net 5.2-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT #0: Mon Dec 22 15:03:45 CET 2003 toor@hal9000.schweikhardt.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/HAL9000 i386 root@hal9000: # fsck -T ufs /dev/vinum/Ports fsck: Invalid option string root@hal9000: 1 # fsck -T ufs: /dev/vinum/Ports fsck: Could not determine filesystem type root@hal9000: 1 # fsck -T ufs:ro /dev/vinum/Ports fsck: Could not determine filesystem type root@hal9000: 1 # mount /dev/vinum/Ports /mnt root@hal9000: # df /dev/vinum/Ports Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/vinum/Ports 8131083 1 7480596 0% /mnt root@hal9000: # echo '/dev/vinum/Ports /mnt ufs rw,noatime,noauto 0 2' >> /etc/fstab root@hal9000: # umount /dev/vinum/Ports root@hal9000: # fsck /dev/vinum/Ports ** /dev/vinum/Ports ** Last Mounted on /mnt ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes ** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames ** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity ** Phase 4 - Check Reference Counts ** Phase 5 - Check Cyl groups 1 files, 1 used, 8131082 free (18 frags, 1016383 blocks, 0.0% fragmentation) root@hal9000: # fsck -T ufs /dev/vinum/Ports fsck: Invalid option string root@hal9000: 1 # fsck -T ufs: /dev/vinum/Ports ** /dev/vinum/Ports ** Last Mounted on /mnt ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes ** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames ** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity ** Phase 4 - Check Reference Counts ** Phase 5 - Check Cyl groups 1 files, 1 used, 8131082 free (18 frags, 1016383 blocks, 0.0% fragmentation) root@hal9000: # fsck -T ufs:ro /dev/vinum/Ports fsck_ufs: illegal option -- o usage: fsck_ufs [-BFpfny] [-b block] [-c level] [-m mode] file system ... Hmm. The last usage message looks suspicious. Is something wrong with fsck's option parsing or passing to fsck_ufs? Thanks for any input, and, before it's over, happy new year! Regards, Jens -- Jens Schweikhardt http://www.schweikhardt.net/ SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped) From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 4 16:40:33 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC85316A4CE for ; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:40:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B445B43D31 for ; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:40:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@lemis.com) Received: from blackwater.lemis.com (blackwater.lemis.com [192.109.197.80]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E422BD32 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:40:23 +1100 (EST) Received: by blackwater.lemis.com (Postfix, from userid 1004) id DB4B751215; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:10:21 +1030 (CST) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:10:21 +1030 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey To: Jens Schweikhardt Message-ID: <20040105004021.GO7617@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <20040103160313.GA54680@schweikhardt.net> <20040104031138.GE7617@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20040104101850.GA1169@schweikhardt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7gLe/sNPhR777EPF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040104101850.GA1169@schweikhardt.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: The FreeBSD Project Phone: +61-8-8388-8286 Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Mobile: +61-418-838-708 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-PGP-Fingerprint: 9A1B 8202 BCCE B846 F92F 09AC 22E6 F290 507A 4223 cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fsck(8), /etc/fstab and vinum X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:40:33 -0000 --7gLe/sNPhR777EPF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sunday, 4 January 2004 at 11:18:50 +0100, Jens Schweikhardt wrote: > Grog, > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:41:38PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > # On Saturday, 3 January 2004 at 17:03:13 +0100, Jens Schweikhardt wrote: > # > hello, world\n > # > > # > it appears fsck can't determine the file system type for ufs on vinum > # > partitions if there is no entry in /etc/fstab, > # > # Yes, there are difficulties, depending on the name of the volume. > > /dev/vinum/Ports in this case. > > # > even when I use fsck -T ufs:ro /dev/vinum/foo. > # > # Hmm. I haven't tried this. It works fine with -t ufs, at least on > # -CURRENT. Do you have trouble with that? > > Yes. On -CURRENT -T ufs: only works when /etc/fstab already has an entry > for /dev/vinum/Ports. > > Starting without an entry in /etc/fstab: >=20 > [fsck -T omitted] Try fsck -t ufs /dev/vinum/Ports. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers. --7gLe/sNPhR777EPF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/+LJ1IubykFB6QiMRAve/AJ9viadAQVPEBR0CH6uvjr2BfhohVwCgkVU6 ebwJq2lqyu2EgezkOWSC7o0= =S7U1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7gLe/sNPhR777EPF-- From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 5 02:01:34 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD6E16A4CE; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 02:01:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from bremen.shuttle.de (bremen.shuttle.de [194.95.249.251]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16B043D1D; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 02:01:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from schweikh@schweikhardt.net) Received: by bremen.shuttle.de (Postfix, from userid 10) id 1D8FDFFF5; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:01:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from hal9000.schweikhardt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i05A1Scf001620; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:01:28 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from schweikh@hal9000.schweikhardt.net) Received: (from schweikh@localhost)i05A1Sfj001619; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:01:28 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from schweikh) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:01:28 +0100 From: Jens Schweikhardt To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" Message-ID: <20040105100128.GB1198@schweikhardt.net> References: <20040103160313.GA54680@schweikhardt.net> <20040104031138.GE7617@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20040104101850.GA1169@schweikhardt.net> <20040105004021.GO7617@wantadilla.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040105004021.GO7617@wantadilla.lemis.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fsck(8), /etc/fstab and vinum X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:01:34 -0000 Grog, # > Yes. On -CURRENT -T ufs: only works when /etc/fstab already has an entry # > for /dev/vinum/Ports. # > # > Starting without an entry in /etc/fstab: # > # > [fsck -T omitted] # # Try fsck -t ufs /dev/vinum/Ports. Works, thanks! Regards, Jens -- Jens Schweikhardt http://www.schweikhardt.net/ SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped) From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 6 13:13:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24ADE16A4CE for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:13:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.seekingfire.com (coyote.seekingfire.com [24.72.10.212]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CC943D48 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:13:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tillman@seekingfire.com) Received: by mail.seekingfire.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 78E7216E; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:13:36 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:13:36 -0600 From: Tillman Hodgson To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040106211336.GV19107@seekingfire.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-GPG-Key-ID: 828AFC7B X-GPG-Fingerprint: 5584 14BA C9EB 1524 0E68 F543 0F0A 7FBC 828A FC7B X-GPG-Key: http://www.seekingfire.com/gpg_key.asc X-Urban-Legend: There is lots of hidden information in headers User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Subject: Request: summary of NFSv4 status available anywhere? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:13:38 -0000 Howdy folks, I found a post by Jim Rees in mid November and a single reply in the mailing list archives, but no mention of of NFSv4 since then. Is there a status update available anywhere? A pointer to a roadmap would be ideal, but a "client works, excepting these features, preliminary server planned for March" would be great too. I'm interested in v4 as a Kerberos user: I'd like more secure file-serving via Kerberos integration and OpenAFS hasn't been successful for me on FreeBSD. -T -- [It] contains "vegetable stabilizer" which sounds ominous. How unstable are vegetables? - A.S.R. quote (Jeff Zahn) From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 6 13:35:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F6B16A4CE for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:35:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from citi.umich.edu (citi.umich.edu [141.211.133.111]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8288743D46 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:35:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rees@citi.umich.edu) Received: from citi.umich.edu (dumaguete.citi.umich.edu [141.211.133.51]) by citi.umich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0572091E; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:35:54 -0500 (EST) To: Tillman Hodgson From: Jim Rees In-Reply-To: Tillman Hodgson, Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:13:36 CST Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:35:54 -0500 Sender: rees@citi.umich.edu Message-Id: <20040106213554.8F0572091E@citi.umich.edu> cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Request: summary of NFSv4 status available anywhere? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:35:56 -0000 I'm sorry we haven't been better about sharing our plans. We have no current plans to do a server. Sorry. We are holding back new code pending the release of FreeBSD 5.2, which will be the first to incorporate our client. After that we'll be working on gss, and hope to test a client with kerberos and maybe lipkey at Connectathon in late Feb. Look for it to show up in the FreeBSD source tree shortly after that. Right now I'm working on some small cleanups. I want to have the v3 and v4 clients both use the same rpc, so that v3 will get the benefits of rpcsec. I want to fix the layering violations and backward references that currently make it impossible to have completely separate v3 and v4 client modules. There is still plenty of work to do before the client is fully functional. You can use it, but as it is now you don't get many of the benefits of v4. That will come later. From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 6 14:06:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA93D16A4CE for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:06:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.seekingfire.com (coyote.seekingfire.com [24.72.10.212]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B066B43D5C for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:06:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tillman@seekingfire.com) Received: by mail.seekingfire.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3DD1919E; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:06:21 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:06:21 -0600 From: Tillman Hodgson To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040106220621.GW19107@seekingfire.com> References: <20040106213554.8F0572091E@citi.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040106213554.8F0572091E@citi.umich.edu> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-GPG-Key-ID: 828AFC7B X-GPG-Fingerprint: 5584 14BA C9EB 1524 0E68 F543 0F0A 7FBC 828A FC7B X-GPG-Key: http://www.seekingfire.com/gpg_key.asc X-Urban-Legend: There is lots of hidden information in headers User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Subject: Re: Request: summary of NFSv4 status available anywhere? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:06:30 -0000 On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:35:54PM -0500, Jim Rees wrote: > I'm sorry we haven't been better about sharing our plans. No problem, I'm happy to see that the code is simply there :-) > We are holding back new code pending the release of FreeBSD 5.2, which will > be the first to incorporate our client. After that we'll be working on gss, > and hope to test a client with kerberos and maybe lipkey at Connectathon in > late Feb. Look for it to show up in the FreeBSD source tree shortly after > that. Ah, so the existing mounts_nfs4 doesn't have gss. I'll wait until after Feb to do any testing with it then. > Right now I'm working on some small cleanups. I want to have the v3 and v4 > clients both use the same rpc, so that v3 will get the benefits of rpcsec. > I want to fix the layering violations and backward references that currently > make it impossible to have completely separate v3 and v4 client modules. Interesting stuff. It sounds like v3 will get a bit of a dusting off in teh process. > There is still plenty of work to do before the client is fully functional. > You can use it, but as it is now you don't get many of the benefits of v4. > That will come later. Thanks for the update! -T -- "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." - Albert Einstein From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 7 16:26:32 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9774D16A4CE for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:26:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from beelzebubba.sysabend.org (alcatraz.inna.net [209.201.74.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A6343D5D for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:26:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from xyzzy@moo.sysabend.org) Received: from moo.sysabend.org (moo.sysabend.org [66.111.41.70]) by beelzebubba.sysabend.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CDFF14E99 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:26:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (nullmailer pid 76199 invoked by uid 14); Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:26:27 -0000 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:26:27 -0800 From: Tom Arnold To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040108002627.GH22041@moo.sysabend.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: The Sysabend Dump X-Operating-System: CPM2.2 X-8-Bit-Samples-And-Analog-Filters: Rah! X-Bucket-Brigade-Devices: Rah! Subject: Large filesystems with massive inodes on BSD5.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: xyzzy@sysabend.org List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:26:32 -0000 Greetings I'm building a fileserver thats going to house a large number of small files ( no, not an innd server but same idea sorta ). I've got a 3.3TB RAID hanging off a FreeBSD 5.2-RC box ( cvsup'd to RELENG_5_2 monday night ). I've broken it up into 2 1TB filesystems newfs'd "stock" and the remainder a 1TB partition and a 300gig partition. Now the fun part. newfs'd the final two partitions -b 4096 -f 512 -i 512 as they are going to have many many small files on them. Needless to say if the server reboots unexpectedly fsck takes a long long to run. So this is why for a production server I'm playing with 5.2 Newfs'd UFS2 softupdates enabled. Crash the box to force a dirty reboot. Boots finally after about 20 minutes of playing with snapshots. About 4 hours later I get this lovely error : Jan 7 02:58:12 tarnold2 fsck: /dev/da1s1e: CANNOT CREATE SNAPSHOT /export/database/.snap/fsck_snapshot: File too large Jan 7 02:58:12 tarnold2 fsck: Jan 7 02:58:12 tarnold2 fsck: /dev/da1s1e: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY. Jan 7 20:21:24 tarnold2 su: tarnold to root on /dev/ttyp0 da1s1e is the largest or the two filesystems with huge numbers of inodes. Am I running into some kind of filesystem limits by having 2billion inodes on it? Am I even asking on the correct mailing list or should I ask this on -Current? Thanks. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Tom Arnold - When I was small, I was in love, - - Sysabend - In love with everything. - - CareTaker - And now there's only you... - -------------- -- Thomas Dolby, "Cloudburst At Shingle Street" - From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 8 14:07:10 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F91516A4CE for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:07:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A2743D48 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:07:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fw@deneb.enyo.de) Received: (debugging) helo=deneb.enyo.de ip=212.9.189.171 name=deneb.enyo.de Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171]) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1AeiJM-0004iV-Pu for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:07:28 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.30) id 1AeiIx-0005AL-Nf for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:07:03 +0100 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:07:03 +0100 To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040108220703.GA19764@deneb.enyo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Florian Weimer Subject: nullfs on 5.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:07:10 -0000 I'm trying to use nullfs on FreeBSD 5.1, and run into deadlocks in quite simple situations (chroot to tree that contains an alias mount, read access to the mounted tree -- no recursive/loop mounts). Processes get stuck and hang forever in D state (holding a UFS log according to ps). Is nullfs essentially unsuported, or is it just broken? What's the status of unionfs (the manpage is rather discouraging). From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 9 01:35:52 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9779016A4CE for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 01:35:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au (smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au [210.50.30.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A38F43D3F for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 01:35:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tjr@freebsd.org) Received: from freebsd.org (210.50.112.250) by smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au (7.0.020) id 3F8B009E01F16EF7; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:35:45 +1100 Message-ID: <3FFE7644.2020402@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:37:08 +1100 From: Tim Robbins User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Florian Weimer References: <20040108220703.GA19764@deneb.enyo.de> In-Reply-To: <20040108220703.GA19764@deneb.enyo.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nullfs on 5.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:35:52 -0000 Florian Weimer wrote: >I'm trying to use nullfs on FreeBSD 5.1, and run into deadlocks in quite >simple situations (chroot to tree that contains an alias mount, read >access to the mounted tree -- no recursive/loop mounts). Processes get >stuck and hang forever in D state (holding a UFS log according to ps). > > One major potential deadlock has been fixed since the release of 5.1. If you find a reproducible way of deadlocking nullfs on 5.2 or a -current snapshot less than 6 months old, submit a bug report. >Is nullfs essentially unsuported, or is it just broken? What's the >status of unionfs (the manpage is rather discouraging). > > > Nullfs is unsupported, but works well except for a few outstanding bugs (e.g. accessing some kinds of special files on the lower layer through the upper layer causes a panic). Similarly for unionfs. Umapfs is broken and should be avoided. Tim From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 9 01:47:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA89F16A4CE; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 01:47:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BB343D5C; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 01:47:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fw@deneb.enyo.de) Received: (debugging) helo=deneb.enyo.de ip=212.9.189.171 name=deneb.enyo.de Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171]) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1AetFG-000835-VF; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:47:58 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.30) id 1AetEt-0001Uf-19; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:47:35 +0100 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:47:35 +0100 To: Tim Robbins Message-ID: <20040109094734.GA5565@deneb.enyo.de> References: <20040108220703.GA19764@deneb.enyo.de> <3FFE7644.2020402@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FFE7644.2020402@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Florian Weimer cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nullfs on 5.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:47:39 -0000 Tim Robbins wrote: > One major potential deadlock has been fixed since the release of 5.1. If > you find a reproducible way of deadlocking nullfs on 5.2 or a -current > snapshot less than 6 months old, submit a bug report. Thanks, I'll try to build RELENG_5_2. > >Is nullfs essentially unsuported, or is it just broken? What's the > >status of unionfs (the manpage is rather discouraging). > > > > > > > Nullfs is unsupported, but works well except for a few outstanding bugs > (e.g. accessing some kinds of special files on the lower layer through > the upper layer causes a panic). So I should be safe if I copy /dev? Good to know. From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 9 14:35:40 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14C916A4CE; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:35:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED2243D48; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:35:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fw@deneb.enyo.de) Received: (debugging) helo=deneb.enyo.de ip=212.9.189.171 name=deneb.enyo.de Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171]) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1Af5EX-0004Hn-DQ; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:36:01 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.30) id 1Af5E9-0001S9-ED; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:35:37 +0100 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 23:35:37 +0100 To: Tim Robbins Message-ID: <20040109223537.GA5542@deneb.enyo.de> References: <20040108220703.GA19764@deneb.enyo.de> <3FFE7644.2020402@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FFE7644.2020402@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Florian Weimer cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nullfs on 5.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:35:40 -0000 Tim Robbins wrote: > One major potential deadlock has been fixed since the release of 5.1. If > you find a reproducible way of deadlocking nullfs on 5.2 or a -current > snapshot less than 6 months old, submit a bug report. It now seems to work, at least for the basic stuff (running sshd inside a jail etc). Thanks! From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 9 16:56:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6737616A4CE for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:56:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from carver.gumbysoft.com (carver.gumbysoft.com [66.220.23.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA1C43D2D for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:56:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dwhite@gumbysoft.com) Received: by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B199572DBF; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:56:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2C472DB5; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:56:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:56:39 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White To: Tom Arnold In-Reply-To: <20040108002627.GH22041@moo.sysabend.org> Message-ID: <20040109165514.X24587@carver.gumbysoft.com> References: <20040108002627.GH22041@moo.sysabend.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Large filesystems with massive inodes on BSD5.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:56:46 -0000 On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Tom Arnold wrote: > I'm building a fileserver thats going to house a large number of small > files ( no, not an innd server but same idea sorta ). > I've got a 3.3TB RAID hanging off a FreeBSD 5.2-RC box ( cvsup'd to RELENG_5_2 > monday night ). > I've broken it up into 2 1TB filesystems newfs'd "stock" and the remainder > a 1TB partition and a 300gig partition. wow. :) > Now the fun part. > newfs'd the final two partitions -b 4096 -f 512 -i 512 as they are going to > have many many small files on them. Needless to say if the server reboots > unexpectedly fsck takes a long long to run. So this is why for a production > server I'm playing with 5.2 Unless you're going to fill the filesystem with 512 byte files, you probably have the sizes set too low. You're probably OK with the default of 4096 bytes/inode. > Newfs'd UFS2 softupdates enabled. Crash the box to force a dirty reboot. > Boots finally after about 20 minutes of playing with snapshots. About > 4 hours later I get this lovely error : > > Jan 7 02:58:12 tarnold2 fsck: /dev/da1s1e: CANNOT CREATE SNAPSHOT /export/database/.snap/fsck_snapshot: File > too large > Jan 7 02:58:12 tarnold2 fsck: > Jan 7 02:58:12 tarnold2 fsck: /dev/da1s1e: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY. > Jan 7 20:21:24 tarnold2 su: tarnold to root on /dev/ttyp0 > > da1s1e is the largest or the two filesystems with huge numbers of inodes. Heh. Thats funny. I'd like to see Kirk's reaction to that. > Am I running into some kind of filesystem limits by having 2billion inodes > on it? Am I even asking on the correct mailing list or should I ask this > on -Current? This is the right spot. Interesting that fsck fell over creating the snapshot due to E2BIG. -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 9 17:05:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C50D16A4CE for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:05:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from beelzebubba.sysabend.org (alcatraz.inna.net [209.201.74.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A55243D1F for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:05:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from xyzzy@moo.sysabend.org) Received: from moo.sysabend.org (moo.sysabend.org [66.111.41.70]) by beelzebubba.sysabend.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A7D314E9A; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:05:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (nullmailer pid 81639 invoked by uid 14); Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:05:14 -0000 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:05:14 -0800 From: Tom Arnold To: Doug White Message-ID: <20040110010514.GA79577@moo.sysabend.org> References: <20040108002627.GH22041@moo.sysabend.org> <20040109165514.X24587@carver.gumbysoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040109165514.X24587@carver.gumbysoft.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: The Sysabend Dump X-Operating-System: CPM2.2 cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Large filesystems with massive inodes on BSD5.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: xyzzy@sysabend.org List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:05:21 -0000 On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:56:39PM -0800, Doug White wrote: > Unless you're going to fill the filesystem with 512 byte files, you > probably have the sizes set too low. You're probably OK with the default > of 4096 bytes/inode. Its actually gonna be filled with gzipped spam which we find seems to be under 1k. 512bytes is probably too small, but even doubling the fragment and inode size to 1024 still leaves me with a billion inodes... > This is the right spot. Interesting that fsck fell over creating the > snapshot due to E2BIG. Yeah. Interesting is a word for it. :-) I dont know how much longer I can keep this setup around if this might be a bug worth investigating I'd like to be able to help. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Tom Arnold - When I was small, I was in love, - - Sysabend - In love with everything. - - CareTaker - And now there's only you... - -------------- -- Thomas Dolby, "Cloudburst At Shingle Street" - From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 10 12:19:19 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 517F816A4CE for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:19:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from carver.gumbysoft.com (carver.gumbysoft.com [66.220.23.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F4443D3F for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:19:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dwhite@gumbysoft.com) Received: by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 62B4472DC9; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:19:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D79472DC7; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:19:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:19:18 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White To: Tom Arnold In-Reply-To: <20040110010514.GA79577@moo.sysabend.org> Message-ID: <20040110121707.J36595@carver.gumbysoft.com> References: <20040108002627.GH22041@moo.sysabend.org> <20040110010514.GA79577@moo.sysabend.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Large filesystems with massive inodes on BSD5.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:19:19 -0000 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Tom Arnold wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:56:39PM -0800, Doug White wrote: > > Unless you're going to fill the filesystem with 512 byte files, you > > probably have the sizes set too low. You're probably OK with the default > > of 4096 bytes/inode. > > Its actually gonna be filled with gzipped spam which we find seems to be > under 1k. 512bytes is probably too small, but even doubling the fragment > and inode size to 1024 still leaves me with a billion inodes... This is a really inefficient filing system for this kind of data .. you are really going to be sorry if you ever have to move it. Can you stick it in a database, or combine it into larger files? The gzip overhead is going to consume a significant fraction of the space. -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org