From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 3 08:33:39 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E656106564A for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 08:33:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from c.kworr@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ey0-f182.google.com (mail-ey0-f182.google.com [209.85.215.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7608FC12 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 08:33:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eaaf13 with SMTP id f13so853904eaa.13 for ; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:33:31 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of c.kworr@gmail.com designates 10.14.37.7 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.14.37.7; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of c.kworr@gmail.com designates 10.14.37.7 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=c.kworr@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=c.kworr@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.14.37.7]) by 10.14.37.7 with SMTP id x7mr7666224eea.90.1330763611952 (num_hops = 1); Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:33:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5kaE1VPUTnWa75t3gwzUcMHCwM/h+mO0x9cn+67ZBTA=; b=DT5UfyRe2RliFLPW/NjSgjMa2/TmYHrBNvLIb4eIJsS14g07vSO2qHe0M6769jTAwA FkvSjO/Bt8j+KhXGEb5kPiCwyKrGO7QX/klFF7IeWLzaSpp/XPsCEuxMmKTtkq5Y7XPi 7X4AD2QR+KAuRnf4xXkQXzfI0aIrkt5Cl2l17b+TWLxg6va4IXpfK5RVVrl41YH73Aw3 lgn+9kkBUToLl84pzNLgOXCQg5Uzo4uHkZmYwcWHfZbXkiVOr7TB+fB8+WDFk2OLfMHq u4vabjsfUDYANYIWp5Njus60nVewOue9FHux8X70qg2zgLa9MRPGsbLNOwDg2M9H6Q2a cuew== Received: by 10.14.37.7 with SMTP id x7mr5891431eea.90.1330763611849; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:33:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from green.tandem.local (184-174-132-95.pool.ukrtel.net. [95.132.174.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n17sm31014352eei.3.2012.03.03.00.33.29 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:33:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F51D758.7070504@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:33:28 +0200 From: Volodymyr Kostyrko User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120220 Firefox/10.0.2 SeaMonkey/2.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Leidinger References: <4F50DCD8.9080603@gmail.com> <20120302174814.Horde.D12JcpjmRSRPUPnOdPNegTA@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20120302174814.Horde.D12JcpjmRSRPUPnOdPNegTA@webmail.leidinger.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs fails to mount correctly during 8.2 -> 9.0 update X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 08:33:39 -0000 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Volodymyr Kostyrko (from Fri, 02 Mar 2012 > 16:44:40 +0200): > >> After that 9.0 kernel was loaded with 8.2 userland. I know this is not >> the right-and-only-one way of updating FreeBSD but it works for me >> through releases. But this time something strange happened. During >> system mount kernel spits out something like: >> >> Solaris: WARNING: metaslab_free_dva(): bad DVA 0:52834975928475 >> >> It was something like one page of this lines. > > The ZFS in 9.0 and 8.3 detect some things in the pool which 8.2 does not > detect. It seems that the boot with 9.0 repaired something in your pool, > which 8.2 didn't detect. As you haven't provided the output of "zpool > status -v" when the pool was in the RO state, it's less easy to > determine what happened exactly. I know that 9.0 can fix more things that 8.2. But I doubt 9.0 this time fixed anything as it comes up with pool in readonly state. Maybe something was fixed by 9.0 or maybe by scrub. I don't care really. The machine is in production and problem is solved. Anyway I just added a task to my list to recreate all upgraded pools when this would be available. I haven't include output for "zpool status" because it was partially gibberish due to running 8.2 tools with 8.2 lib over 9.0 module. However as I recall it hasn't pointed any errors. > In short: problem solved, you're system is OK (according to the problem > detection code of the scrub) now, no need to worry. I known, I know... I just ended up thinking that raising my voice to inform others of possible flaws and clues even without full data can help someone to investigate it better. Like this one: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/144214 -- Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.