On 12 Jan, Don Lewis wrote:
> On 11 Jan, Denis Shaposhnikov wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> "Don" == Don Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Don> Are you using any unusual file systems, such as nullfs or
>> Don> unionfs?
>>
>> >> Yes, I'm use a lots of nullfs. This is a host system for about 20
On 11 Jan, Denis Shaposhnikov wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> "Don" == Don Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Don> Are you using any unusual file systems, such as nullfs or
> Don> unionfs?
>
> >> Yes, I'm use a lots of nullfs. This is a host system for about 20
> >> jails with nullfs mounted ro sys
Hi!
> "Don" == Don Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Don> Are you using any unusual file systems, such as nullfs or
Don> unionfs?
>> Yes, I'm use a lots of nullfs. This is a host system for about 20
>> jails with nullfs mounted ro system:
Don> That would be my guess as to the cause of
On 5 Jan, Denis Shaposhnikov wrote:
>> "Don" == Don Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Don> Are you using any unusual file systems, such as nullfs or
> Don> unionfs?
>
> Yes, I'm use a lots of nullfs. This is a host system for about 20
> jails with nullfs mounted ro system:
That would
> "Don" == Don Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Don> Are you using any unusual file systems, such as nullfs or
Don> unionfs?
Yes, I'm use a lots of nullfs. This is a host system for about 20
jails with nullfs mounted ro system:
/dev/mirror/gm0s1a on / (ufs, local, read-only)
devfs on /dev
On 5 Jan, Denis Shaposhnikov wrote:
>> "Don" == Don Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Don> pid 519 wants to lock this vnode but some other thread is
> Don> holding the vnode lock. Unfortunately we don't know who the
> Don> lock holder is because the message is truncated.
>
> Is it po
> "Don" == Don Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Don> pid 519 wants to lock this vnode but some other thread is
Don> holding the vnode lock. Unfortunately we don't know who the
Don> lock holder is because the message is truncated.
Is it possible to find out the answer from the crashdump?
On 5 Jan, Denis Shaposhnikov wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> "Greg" == Greg Rivers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Greg> It's taken more than a month, but the problem has recurred
> Greg> without snapshots ever having been run. I've got a good trace
>
> I think that I have the same problem on a fresh
Hi!
> "Greg" == Greg Rivers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Greg> It's taken more than a month, but the problem has recurred
Greg> without snapshots ever having been run. I've got a good trace
I think that I have the same problem on a fresh CURRENT. For some
processes I see MWCHAN = ufs and "
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Don Lewis wrote:
How about "show buffer 0xdc76fe30"?
db> show buffer 0xdc76fe30
buf at 0xdc76fe30
b_flags = 0x20a0
b_error = 0, b_bufsize = 16384, b_bcount = 16384, b_resid = 0
b_bufobj = (0xc8985610), b_data = 0xe1d6b000, b_blkno = 365086368
lockstatus = 0, excl count
On 3 Jan, Greg Rivers wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Don Lewis wrote:
>> Pid 87117 is playing with buf 0xdc76fe30 which is not locked, and is
>> sleeping on the buf's b_xflags member. It looks like 87117 is waiting
>> for an in-progress write to complete. There are a large number of other
>> send
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Don Lewis wrote:
db> show lockedbufs
[snip]
looks like this is the buf that pid 87150 is waiting for:
buf at 0xdc713f50
b_flags = 0xa00200a0
b_error = 0, b_bufsize = 16384, b_bcount = 16384, b_resid = 0
b_bufobj = (0xc8985610), b_data = 0xe0b7b000, b_blkno = 365094624
lo
On 3 Jan, Greg Rivers wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Don Lewis wrote:
>
>> There are large number of sendmail processes waiting on vnode locks
>> which are held by other sendmail processes that are waiting on other
>> vnode locks, etc. until we get to sendmail pid 87150 which is holding a
>> vnode
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Don Lewis wrote:
There are large number of sendmail processes waiting on vnode locks
which are held by other sendmail processes that are waiting on other
vnode locks, etc. until we get to sendmail pid 87150 which is holding a
vnode lock and waiting to lock a buf.
Tracing com
On 3 Jan, Greg Rivers wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, I wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>>
>>> It may not be the same problem. You should also try to obtain a trace when
>>> snapshots are not implicated.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. I'll do so at the first opportunity.
>>
>
> First,
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, I wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Kris Kennaway wrote:
It may not be the same problem. You should also try to obtain a trace when
snapshots are not implicated.
Agreed. I'll do so at the first opportunity.
First, my thanks to all of you for looking into this.
It's tak
On 22 Nov, Greg Rivers wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
>> It may not be the same problem. You should also try to obtain a trace
>> when snapshots are not implicated.
>>
>
> Agreed. I'll do so at the first opportunity.
>
>
>> 'show lockedvnods' is very important for diagn
On 26 Nov, Tor Egge wrote:
>
>> Thanks Kris, these are exactly the clues I needed. Since the deadlock
>> during a snapshot is fairly easy to reproduce, I did so and collected this
>> information below. "alltrace" didn't work as I expected (didn't produce a
>> trace), so I traced each pid asso
On 26 Nov, Tor Egge wrote:
>
>> Thanks Kris, these are exactly the clues I needed. Since the deadlock
>> during a snapshot is fairly easy to reproduce, I did so and collected this
>> information below. "alltrace" didn't work as I expected (didn't produce a
>> trace), so I traced each pid asso
> Thanks Kris, these are exactly the clues I needed. Since the deadlock
> during a snapshot is fairly easy to reproduce, I did so and collected this
> information below. "alltrace" didn't work as I expected (didn't produce a
> trace), so I traced each pid associated with a locked vnode separa
On Mon, 2005-Nov-21 21:23:10 -0600, Greg Rivers wrote:
> the
>deadlock also occurs under normal operation when no snapshots are running
>or have ever been run since boot. It's just much less frequent in this
>case.
I've also seen this behaviour in both 5.x and 6.0 (I can't recall if
it bit me
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:23:10PM -0600, Greg Rivers wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> >Looks like a UFS snapshot deadlock. Are you running something like dump
> >-L on this filesystem, or making other use of snapshots?
> >
>
> Indeed I am (dump -L), but as I said (not ver
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Looks like a UFS snapshot deadlock. Are you running something like dump
-L on this filesystem, or making other use of snapshots?
Indeed I am (dump -L), but as I said (not very clearly, sorry), the
deadlock also occurs under normal operation when no
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:54:09 +0100, Greg Rivers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've recently put up three busy email relay hosts running 6.0-STABLE.
Performance is excellent except for a nagging critical issue that keeps
cropping up.
/var/spool is its own file system mounted on a geom stripe
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 05:54:09PM -0600, Greg Rivers wrote:
> I've recently put up three busy email relay hosts running 6.0-STABLE.
> Performance is excellent except for a nagging critical issue that keeps
> cropping up.
>
> /var/spool is its own file system mounted on a geom stripe of four BSD
25 matches
Mail list logo
