From owner-freebsd-current Fri Feb 21 0: 0:58 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2C037B401 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:00:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from MX1.estpak.ee (mta1.mail.neti.ee [194.126.101.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F12343FBF for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:00:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kalts@estpak.ee) Received: from kevad.internal (80-235-38-35-dsl.mus.estpak.ee [80.235.38.35]) by MX1.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C5FA8892E; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:59:32 +0200 (EET) Received: from kevad.internal (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kevad.internal (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1L80l21001242; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:00:48 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from vallo@kevad.internal) Received: (from vallo@localhost) by kevad.internal (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1L80kxw001241; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:00:46 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from vallo) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:00:46 +0200 From: Vallo Kallaste To: Darryl Okahata Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Vinum R5 [was: Re: background fsck deadlocks with ufs2 and big disk] Message-ID: <20030221080046.GA1103@kevad.internal> Reply-To: kalts@estpak.ee References: <20030220200317.GA5136@kevad.internal> <200302202228.OAA03775@mina.soco.agilent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200302202228.OAA03775@mina.soco.agilent.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i-ja.1 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:28:45PM -0800, Darryl Okahata wrote: > Vallo Kallaste wrote: > > > I'll second Brad's statement about vinum and softupdates > > interactions. My last experiments with vinum were more than half a > > year ago, but I guess it still holds. BTW, the interactions showed > > up _only_ on R5 volumes. I had 6 disk (SCSI) R5 volume in Compaq > > Proliant 3000 and the system was very stable before I enabled > > softupdates.. and of course after I disabled softupdates. In between > > there were crashes and nasty problems with filesystem. Unfortunately > > it was production system and I hadn't chanche to play. > > Did you believe that the crashes were caused by enabling softupdates on > an R5 vinum volume, or were the crashes unrelated to vinum/softupdates? > I can see how crashes unrelated to vinum/softupdates might trash vinum > filesystems. The crashes and anomalies with filesystem residing on R5 volume were related to vinum(R5)/softupdates combo. The vinum R5 and system as a whole were stable without softupdates. Only one problem remained after disabling softupdates, while being online and user I/O going on, rebuilding of failed disk corrupt the R5 volume completely. Don't know is it fixed or not as I don't have necessary hardware at the moment. The only way around was to quiesce the volume before rebuilding, umount it, and wait until rebuild finished. I'll suggest extensive testing cycle for everyone who's going to work with vinum R5. Concat, striping and mirroring has been a breeze but not so with R5. -- Vallo Kallaste kalts@estpak.ee To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message