Dear colleagues, dumping the snapshot of 140G ufs2 fyle system under contemporary RELENG_5 I found that during mksnap_ffs file system is unresponsible even for reading for more than 3 minutes (it's on modern SATA disk with 50+ MBps linear transfer). Is it normal? Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Xin LI wrote: XL> > dumping the snapshot of 140G ufs2 fyle system under contemporary RELENG_5 I XL> > found that during mksnap_ffs file system is unresponsible even for reading for XL> > more than 3 minutes (it's on modern SATA disk with 50+ MBps linear transfer). XL> > Is it normal? XL> XL> mksnap_ffs is expected to suspend your write access, but I think 3 XL> minutes is too long for a 140G file system. Would you please send the XL> dumpfs output of the said file system? Well, as I said, it was even for read access. I checked this with the simple shell script #!/bin/sh while true; do sleep 5 date ls /lh/.snap done when dump -L executes mksnap_ffs for /lh, there is 3:20 pause between dates. dumpfs output is available at http://woozle.hole.ru/misc/dumpfs-lh.gz (83k) Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 15:21 +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:> Dear colleagues, > > dumping the snapshot of 140G ufs2 fyle system under contemporary RELENG_5 I > found that during mksnap_ffs file system is unresponsible even for reading for > more than 3 minutes (it's on modern SATA disk with 50+ MBps linear transfer). > Is it normal?Oddly enough, this happened to me last night on a RELENG_5 system. In my case, things were so bad that mksnap_ffs appeared to wedge everything, meaning I'll have to make a trek in to where the machine is located and press the ol' reset button to get things going again. :-( The machine in question makes and mounts snapshots of all its filesystems for backup each night via Tivoli TSM. This has worked flawlessly for many months. Last night, I had many BitTorrent sessions active on the filesystem that wedged. I guess the activity broke the snapshot mechanism. :-( The odd thing is that it survived the night before, when there were also BitTorrent sessions active. I wonder how much activity mksnap_ffs can take? Cheers, Paul. PS: The problematic file system was not low on space, which could be an issue for snapshot creation. -- e-mail: paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa
>On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:58:02AM -0500, Paul Mather wrote:>>On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 15:21 +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> dumping the snapshot of 140G ufs2 fyle system under contemporary >>> RELENG_5 I found that during mksnap_ffs file system is unresponsible >>> even for reading for more than 3 minutes (it's on modern SATA disk >>> with 50+ MBps linear transfer). >>> Is it normal? >> >> Oddly enough, this happened to me last night on a RELENG_5 system. In >> my case, things were so bad that mksnap_ffs appeared to wedge >> everything, meaning I'll have to make a trek in to where the machine >> is located and press the ol' reset button to get things going again. >> :-( I am investigating using snapshots for backup purposes and am running into similar difficulties, on a 1TB FS it takes over an hour to create a snapshot, during which time an errant ls or two can lock up the system. Reading through list archives suggests that the the amount of time it takes to create the snapshot is not something that is going to go away and that the issue of an ls in the .snap directory during snapshot creation lacks a fix and that best current practise is 'try to avoid that'. > Yes, this is normal. See the documentation about the snapshots > implementation (a README in the kernel source tree, I think, and paper > written by Kirk). That document also says: "As is detailed in the operational information below, snapshots are definitely alpha-test code and are NOT yet ready for production use." Is this the current opinion of snapshots ? >> The machine in question makes and mounts snapshots of all its >> filesystems for backup each night via Tivoli TSM. This has worked >> flawlessly for many months. Last night, I had many BitTorrent >> sessions active on the filesystem that wedged. I guess the activity >> broke the snapshot mechanism. :-( The odd thing is that it survived >> the night before, when there were also BitTorrent sessions active. > > It's possible there are still deadlock conditions in the snapshot > code. Some familiarity with DDB would help to diagnose this (see the > chapter on kernel debugging in the developers' handbook). You'd need > to work with Kirk to debug these, if you're willing. > >> I wonder how much activity mksnap_ffs can take? > > I don't think this is the issue, directly. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20050331/22585a43/signature.bin
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:32:27PM -0800, Dave Knight wrote:> That document also says: > "As is detailed in the operational information below, snapshots are > definitely alpha-test code and are NOT yet ready for production use." > Is this the current opinion of snapshots ?Not really, you just have to be aware of the inbuilt limitations, as you are. Kris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20050401/92a4e441/attachment.bin