From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 15 20:00:09 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9852A16A46C for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:00:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.234]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3139213C4B9 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:00:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 70so824287wra for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:00:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tUdXxT3BxBp5ws0PuhzrazLXn3zXahNmrAlRTS2GGYwqqTtTpWjKvzJwUrQgQpfo7v1miLNseL1H9kAid01eQ8xnRms3yr4puNedy7dRiFheMQKOm8TiwF/xnv/Mkafb/6qsv8ojXYczJCd7R2x6nBf/374MdqxZTQ7bi46ZIWk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Iw7YSjW6ZEPFMqF2EXw/EuaOLIl4yonBVCWxAP5LYKsF4mPbisi/yhwb6ncre+RkdwThPIZhPH/cEq9i1t+0J6Z9dRBaVyxFszojc684mwr+9mO4IlJyNlIMGSk4Iz8FXYFGgV3HikBX+J1LovdS7U5aCOlvj+tDzxsVmVTVgM0= Received: by 10.78.178.5 with SMTP id a5mr1477776huf.1181937607800; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.163.2 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <70e8236f0706151300l72e48e03r40d09f09c6d0ff9d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:00:07 +0100 From: "Joao Barros" To: "Pawel Jakub Dawidek" In-Reply-To: <20070615154009.GB39202@garage.freebsd.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070615145224.GA39202@garage.freebsd.pl> <4672A8CD.5060009@lapo.it> <20070615154009.GB39202@garage.freebsd.pl> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Lapo Luchini Subject: Re: ZFS panic on mdX-based raidz 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: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:00:09 -0000 On 6/15/07, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:57:17PM +0200, Lapo Luchini wrote: > > Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > >> Follows the status with two invalid disks (I wonder why :P) and a scrub > > >> in progress; but the host will panic before the scrub ends. > > >> > > > > > > You corrupted two components in configuration with accepts only one disk > > > failure. > > Yes, I'm well aware of that (it was intentional, in fact), and the > > "invalid" state of the pool was fully expected.. while the kernel panic > > short thereafter was a bit less so ;-) > > Not a very urgent or pressing issue, I do agree, I reported it mainly > > for completeness sake. > > But this is very expected behaviour of ZFS. Let's suppose I have 2 raidz, one volume using disks on one enclosure and another volume using disks on another enclosure. One of the enclosures is disconnected, doesn't matter why. Is ZFS going to panic the machine thus rendering the other volume unavailable? From what I've seen the volume is marked as failed and that's what's supposed to happen. Or when you say intentional was just for md backed devices? -- Joao Barros