It was someone from Sun that recently asked me to repost here
about the checksum problem on mirrored drives. I was reluctant
to do so because you and Bob might start flames again, and you
did! You both sound very defensive, but of course I would never
make an unsubstantiated speculation that you m
Thanks Gaëtan.
What's the bug id for this iommu bug on Intel platforms?
In my case, I have an AMD processor with ECC RAM, so probably not related to
the Intel iommu bug.
I'm seeing the checksum errors in a mirrored rpool using SSDs so maybe it could
be something like cosmic rays causing occasi
Le 3 sept. 09 à 21:59, Simon Breden a écrit :
So what's the consensus on checksum errors appearing within mirror
vdevs?
Is it caused the same bug announced by Adam, or is something else
causing it?
If so, what's the bug id?
Sorry, I forgot to report the end of my experiments. They shown
So what's the consensus on checksum errors appearing within mirror vdevs?
Is it caused the same bug announced by Adam, or is something else causing it?
If so, what's the bug id?
Cheers,
Simon
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss m
2009/9/2 Eric Sproul :
>
> Adam,
> Is it known approximately when this bug was introduced? I have a system
> running
> snv_111 with a large raidz2 pool and I keep running into checksum errors
> though
> the drives are brand new. They are 2TB drives, but the pool is only about 14%
> used (~250G/
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
> On 09/02/09 02:17 PM, Jeff Victor wrote:
>
> Just to expand on that: there are now three levels of testing (and
>> therefore stability) in [Open]Solaris:
>> * Nevada builds - I don't know the details, but it's what BobF referred
>> to with
Hey Bob,
> I have seen few people more prone to unsubstantiated conjecture than you.
> The raidz checksum code was recently reworked to add raidz3. It seems
> likely that a subtle bug was added at that time.
That appears to be the case. I'm investigating the problem and hope to have
and update
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Frank Middleton wrote:
OK, I stand corrected. So the new snv121 checksum bug somehow made it
through the "simple sanity checks". Based on this thread, I wonder if
it is still doing so (my intuition is that the problem still doesn't
show up on Sun hardware). No doubt there's s
On 09/02/09 02:17 PM, Jeff Victor wrote:
Just to expand on that: there are now three levels of testing (and
therefore stability) in [Open]Solaris:
* Nevada builds - I don't know the details, but it's what BobF referred
to with "simple sanity checks" and, I think, what he meant by
"OpenSolaris us
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 09/02/09 12:31 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
I believe this is a different problem. Adam, was this introduced in
b120?
Doubtless you are correct as usual. However, if this is a new problem,
how did it get through Sun's legendary
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 09/02/09 12:31 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
I believe this is a different problem. Adam, was this introduced in b120?
Doubtless you are correct as usual. However, if this is a new problem,
how did it get through Sun's legendary testing process unles
hey richard,
so i just got a bunch of zfs checksum errors after replacing some
mirrored disks on my desktop (u27). i originally blamed the new disks,
until i saw this thread, at which point i started digging in bugster. i
found the following related bugs (i'm not sure which one adam was
refering
On 09/02/09 12:31 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
I believe this is a different problem. Adam, was this introduced in b120?
Doubtless you are correct as usual. However, if this is a new problem,
how did it get through Sun's legendary testing process unless it is
(as you have always maintained) trigg
And in addition to which solaris version people are using, is it relevant which
ZFS level their pool is using?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listi
Hello all,
I have backed down to snv_117, when scrubbing this pool i got my first
checksum errors ever on any build except snv_121. I wonder if this is
a coincidence or if bad checksums have been generated by snv_121?
So i have been running for 10 months without any checksum errors, i
ins
Hi Richard, I just took at that link and it only mentions problems with RAID-Z
vdevs, but some people here, including myself, have checksum errors with
mirrors too, so maybe the link could be updated with this info?
Cheers,
Simon
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
On Sep 2, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 09/02/09 05:40 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote:
For those of us which have already upgraded and written data to our
raidz pools, are there any risks of inconsistency, wrong checksums in
the pool? Is there a bug id?
This may not be a new proble
On Sep 2, 2009, at 2:38 AM, Daniel Carosone wrote:
Furthermore, this clarity needs to be posted somewhere much, much
more visible than buried in some discussion thread.
I've added a note in the ZFS Troubleshooting Guide wiki. However, I
could not
find a public CR. If someone inside Sun ca
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Frank Middleton wrote:
> On 09/02/09 05:40 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote:
>
>> For those of us which have already upgraded and written data to our
>> raidz pools, are there any risks of inconsistency, wrong checksums in
>> the pool? Is there a bug id?
>
> This may not b
Cheers Frank, I'll give it a try... also, doesn't sound good if the problem
goes back pre snv_100...
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-di
Thanks Markus, I'll give that a try.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 09/02/09 10:34 AM, Simon Breden wrote:
I too see checksum errors ocurring for the first time using OpenSolaris 2009.06
on the /dev package repository at version snv_121.
I see the problem occur within a mirrored boot pool (rpool) using SSDs.
Hardware is AMD BE-2350 (ECC) processor with 4GB
...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Simon Breden
Sent: 2. syyskuuta 2009 17:34
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on
Raid-Z pool
I too see checksum errors ocurring for the first time us
I too see checksum errors ocurring for the first time using OpenSolaris 2009.06
on the /dev package repository at version snv_121.
I see the problem occur within a mirrored boot pool (rpool) using SSDs.
Hardware is AMD BE-2350 (ECC) processor with 4GB ECC memory on MCP55 chipset,
although SATA
On 09/02/09 10:01 AM, Gaëtan Lehmann wrote:
I see the same problem on a workstation with ECC RAM and disks in mirror.
The host is a Dell T5500 with 2 cpus and 24 GB of RAM.
Would you know if it has ECC on the buses? I have no idea if or what
Solaris does on X86 to check or correct bus errors,
Adam Leventhal wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> After investigating this problem a bit I'd suggest avoiding deploying
> RAID-Z
> until this issue is resolved. I anticipate having it fixed in build 124.
Adam,
Is it known approximately when this bug was introduced? I have a system running
snv_111 with a lar
Le 2 sept. 09 à 15:27, Frank Middleton a écrit :
On 09/02/09 05:40 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote:
For those of us which have already upgraded and written data to our
raidz pools, are there any risks of inconsistency, wrong checksums in
the pool? Is there a bug id?
This may not be a new problem
On 09/02/09 05:40 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote:
For those of us which have already upgraded and written data to our
raidz pools, are there any risks of inconsistency, wrong checksums in
the pool? Is there a bug id?
This may not be a new problem insofar as it may also affect mirrors.
As part of t
Hi Adam,
On Sep 2, 2009, at 1:54 AM, Adam Leventhal wrote:
Hi James,
After investigating this problem a bit I'd suggest avoiding
deploying RAID-Z
until this issue is resolved. I anticipate having it fixed in build
124.
For those of us which have already upgraded and written data to our
Furthermore, this clarity needs to be posted somewhere much, much more visible
than buried in some discussion thread.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailma
Adam
The 'OpenSolaris Development Release Packaging Repository'
has recently been updated to release 121.
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-announce/2009-August/001253.html
http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev/en/index.shtml
Just to be totally clear, as you recommending that anyone
On 02/09/2009, at 9:54 AM, Adam Leventhal wrote:
After investigating this problem a bit I'd suggest avoiding
deploying RAID-Z
until this issue is resolved. I anticipate having it fixed in build
124.
Thanks for the status update on this Adam.
cheers,
James
Hi James,
After investigating this problem a bit I'd suggest avoiding deploying
RAID-Z
until this issue is resolved. I anticipate having it fixed in build 124.
Apologies for the inconvenience.
Adam
On Aug 28, 2009, at 8:20 PM, James Lever wrote:
On 28/08/2009, at 3:23 AM, Adam Leventhal
On 28/08/2009, at 3:23 AM, Adam Leventhal wrote:
There appears to be a bug in the RAID-Z code that can generate
spurious checksum errors. I'm looking into it now and hope to have
it fixed in build 123 or 124. Apologies for the inconvenience.
Are the errors being generated likely to cause a
Alan,
Super find. Thanks, I thought I was just going crazy until I rolled back to
110 and the errors disappeared. When you do work out a fix, please ping me to
let me know when I can try an upgrade again.
Gary
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
Hey Gary,
There appears to be a bug in the RAID-Z code that can generate
spurious checksum errors. I'm looking into it now and hope to have it
fixed in build 123 or 124. Apologies for the inconvenience.
Adam
On Aug 25, 2009, at 5:29 AM, Gary Gendel wrote:
I have a 5-500GB disk Raid-Z pool
>It looks like It's definitely related to the snv_121 upgrade. I decided to
>roll
>back to snv_110 and the checksum errors have disappeared. I'd like to issue a
>bug report, but I don't have any information that might help track this down,
>just lots of checksum errors.
>Looks like I'm stuck a
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 06:29:52AM -0700, Gary Gendel wrote:
> It looks like It's definitely related to the snv_121 upgrade. I
> decided to roll back to snv_110 and the checksum errors have
> disappeared. I'd like to issue a bug report, but I don't have any
> information that might help track thi
It looks like It's definitely related to the snv_121 upgrade. I decided to
roll back to snv_110 and the checksum errors have disappeared. I'd like to
issue a bug report, but I don't have any information that might help track this
down, just lots of checksum errors.
Looks like I'm stuck at snv
On 08/25/09 05:29 AM, Gary Gendel wrote:
I have a 5-500GB disk Raid-Z pool that has been producing checksum errors right
after upgrading SXCE to build 121. They seem to be randomly occurring on all 5
disks, so it doesn't look like a disk failure situation.
Repeatingly running a scrub on the p
Hello,
On 25 aug 2009, at 14.29, Gary Gendel wrote:
I have a 5-500GB disk Raid-Z pool that has been producing checksum
errors right after upgrading SXCE to build 121. They seem to be
randomly occurring on all 5 disks, so it doesn't look like a disk
failure situation.
Repeatingly runnin
I have a 5-500GB disk Raid-Z pool that has been producing checksum errors right
after upgrading SXCE to build 121. They seem to be randomly occurring on all 5
disks, so it doesn't look like a disk failure situation.
Repeatingly running a scrub on the pools randomly repairs between 20 and a few
42 matches
Mail list logo
