From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 11 22:12:40 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA953106566C for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:12:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xorquewasp@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f227.google.com (mail-ew0-f227.google.com [209.85.219.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCD68FC16 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:12:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xorquewasp@googlemail.com) Received: by ewy27 with SMTP id 27so856469ewy.43 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:12:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=Qbb2SB2RzIKkxV0swySe6bBG+zTtv+4gktv3wB3hjbg=; b=ItZoRMU96f3ym7M9FqS6e+kzIUUTT5XC2VpphdnkYyY0n3Jd+Wyh7S62BK8h/+eqb8 uGyCAO9EqQQoHR/KAl9LygXPfUVIMKTrnfR7oU+evJNdxRCosk4EpUBMzSr6XpMJRFe5 2ybEe0fEJn6xg/SJ2O4nxclu0Z8WPnw8FoITI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to; b=RKcOaR0IuiEveurzztxPEU4Tr2NRxwqsAKsHyTDMJXU0Tg6vY0KUhPVSH55vBYFKhB 72/m6YYBCs5TmAwpdidoPR08jh9YzAUaMbPaiCuedl5i5BVqpiPtJvijr6vp+TP08Rm4 07t4mrwVbyGG6zqs38b0JmB9tqnBu6zL7x8jQ= Received: by 10.210.70.8 with SMTP id s8mr2969639eba.54.1247350359322; Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from viper.internal.network (geeshaulage.lcdsl.co.uk [62.249.247.223]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm7261740ewy.44.2009.07.11.15.12.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by viper.internal.network (Postfix, from userid 11001) id D79F14AC2B; Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:12:17 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:12:17 +0100 From: xorquewasp@googlemail.com To: Steve Bertrand Message-ID: <20090711221217.GA69453@logik.internal.network> References: <20090711161132.GA74849@logik.internal.network> <4A58E314.4040808@ibctech.ca> <20090711202553.GA38156@logik.internal.network> <4A58F800.4090501@ibctech.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A58F800.4090501@ibctech.ca> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS scrub is finished? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:12:40 -0000 On 2009-07-11 16:37:20, Steve Bertrand wrote: > xorquewasp@googlemail.com wrote: > > On 2009-07-11 15:08:04, Steve Bertrand wrote: > > >> Perhaps it is as simple as cron-ing something like the following (of > >> course, replace "zpool scrub" with my cat commands. > > > Problem is that 'zpool scrub' immediately returns with a success > > error code if command line option parsing went OK and the specified > > pools actually exist. You have to manually check the output of 'zpool status' > > to see if the scrub executed with no errors (and that may be hours > > later). > > Ok. What is your ultimate goal? Is it to: > > - run the first scrub > - search for an "ok" err status upon return > - begin the second scrub Yep. > If (in your case) the first scrub fails, is it still feasible to run the > second scrub anyway? If it is, then chaining the commands together > *should* work (however, I've never tested whether '&&' will continue > upon certain 'failures', but so long as the first command _exits_, you > should be alright). I've just realised that the documentation is somewhat misleading. Seems I can actually just do: # zpool scrub backup # zpool scrub storage ... and it'll run for both. The manual page made it sound as if only one scrub operation could be running at one time, across all pools. xw