From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 20 09:56:59 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 4E931106566B for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:56:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter.maloney@brockmann-consult.de) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BBC8FC0C for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:56:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.3.0.26] ([141.4.215.32]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MEFDM-1RqJs12gVU-00FPZ1; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:56:57 +0100 Message-ID: <4F193A68.6050805@brockmann-consult.de> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:56:56 +0100 From: Peter Maloney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org References: <4F192ADA.5020903@brockmann-consult.de> <4F192FDD.6090409@fuckner.net> In-Reply-To: <4F192FDD.6090409@fuckner.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:6zSdEYWPKyoSG5AcwET2wSO6srv0Zxuyk3LXNykhJ2w xJ0QmDwLCMKI97s8daBejwIvBKSS2HxqUSeCG++/X2tnsFpuN9 SBERcKzXJCGtZ2/EonGEA4pip0zAQqMyjo1UI8b/lCsGtRyuxD 6bKk++Y+cJM6KIEjUTAmq/TbCBNaeRKG8mz+oJybswlUWXARxF b2kzWUquRGD8cuEIh6BMRgtr9mwLAiUTtJe7pNYhIcaMkv3W8J q66tqVWk46qD10uHmoNyqh+Yra/2/mAfHmsb9duYDLJyXqoIdJ XU1emC/XN8YuQOnavqCSXxRQ7yPnt/tho9+bLEbZ6iVcIgx0oY S+OGOBkN2KL8dBzxjdaHuZjJ4Y8nCeLoquU9jgkFN Subject: Re: sanity check: is 9211-8i, on 8.3, with IT firmware still "the one" 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, 20 Jan 2012 09:56:59 -0000 On 01/20/2012 10:11 AM, Michael Fuckner wrote: > On 01/20/2012 09:50 AM, Peter Maloney wrote: > > > Hi all, > > >> The "hot pull test": >> -------------- >> dd if=/dev/random of=/somewhere/on/the/disk bs=128k >> pull disk >> wait 1 second >> put disk back in >> wait 1 second > > > this is way too fast- if a device is added or removed there is a > complete rediscovery on the SAS-bus which takes at least 15 seconds. Good point. But as a test, it was very reliable for me in determining that the SSD firmware version was the fault. And I think it is true that it takes about 15 seconds before the "zpool online ..." will work. So let's insert "wait 15+ seconds" before the "zpool online" command. And optionally change all waits to 15+ seconds, depending on what you want to prove (production-like environment vs. make no compromise to make it fail). > > In production environments this short span wouldn't happen, so this > test may produce segfaults, but it is not realistic. I am not sure if you are referring to my seg faults I caused, but FYI when the timeouts happened on their own, without hot pulling or issuing any commands to test it, I could always cause a seg fault minutes, hours or days later by running either: - gpart show or - gpart show da## and a panic by running: - gpart recover da## or - camcontrol reset 0:#:0 > > Regards, > Michael! > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- -------------------------------------------- Peter Maloney Brockmann Consult Max-Planck-Str. 2 21502 Geesthacht Germany Tel: +49 4152 889 300 Fax: +49 4152 889 333 E-mail: peter.maloney@brockmann-consult.de Internet: http://www.brockmann-consult.de --------------------------------------------