similar to: 6366222 zdb(1M) needs to use largefile primitives when reading label

Hello all, I have a question about what output "ZDB -dddddd" should produce in L0 DVA fields. I expected there to be one or more same-sized references to data blocks stored in top-level vdevs (one vdev #0 in my 6-disk raidz2 pool), as confirmed by the source: http://src.illumos.org/source/xref/illumos-gate/usr/src/cmd/zdb/zdb.c#sprintf_blkptr_compact And I do see that for some of my

Hello, all I''m "playing" with ZDB again on another test system, the rpool being uncompressed with 512-byte sectors. Here''s some output that puzzles me (questions follow): # zdb -dddddddd -bbbbbb rpool/ROOT/nightly-2012-01-31 260050 ... 1e80000 L0 DVA[0]=<0:200972e00:20200> DVA[1]=<0:391820a00:200> [L0 ZFS plain file] fletcher4 uncompressed

Author: Darren Moffat <Darren.Moffat at Sun.COM> Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Latest revision: 7a6ad1928ffa250a595fe19b5eef1923cf2a4c67 Total changesets: 1 Log message: mdb & zdb should print info about crypt in blkptr Files: update: usr/src/cmd/mdb/common/modules/zfs/zfs.c update: usr/src/cmd/zdb/zdb.c

Hi List, First of all: S10u4 120011-14 So I have the weird situation. Earlier this week, I finally mirrored up two iSCSI based pools. I had been wanting to do this for some time, because the availability of the data in these pools is important. One pool mirrored just fine, but the other pool is another story. First lesson (I think) is you should scrub your pools, at least those backed by

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I have a corrupt pool, which lives on a .vdi file of a VirtualBox. IIRC the corruption (i.e. pool being not importable) was caused when I killed virtual box, because it was hung. This pool consists of a single vdev and I would really like to get some files out of that thing. So I tried running zdb, but this fails with an assertion failure:

I have a 100gb SAN lun in a pool, been running ok for about 6 months. panicked the system this morning. system was running S10U2. In the course of troubleshooting I''ve installed the latest recommended bundle including kjp 118833-36 and zfs patch 124204-03 created as: zpool create zfspool01 /dev/dsk/emcpower0c zfs create zfspool01/nb60openv zfs set mountpoint=legacy zfspool01/nb60openv

On a system still running nv_30, I''ve a small RaidZ filled to the brim: 2 3 root at mir pts/9 ~ 78# uname -a SunOS mir 5.11 snv_30 sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraAX-MP 0 3 root at mir pts/9 ~ 50# zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT mirpool1 33.6G 0 137K /mirpool1 mirpool1/home 12.3G 0 12.3G /export/home mirpool1/install 12.9G

Hello all, First off, i''m talking about a SXDE build 89. Sorry if that was discussed here before, but i did not find anything related on the archives, and i think is a "weird" issue... If i try to remove a specific file, i got: # rm file1 rm: file1: No such file or directory # rm -rf dir2 rm: Unable to remove directory dir2: Directory not empty Take a look: ------- cut

In a debug build you should get a stack trace by default, which would be helpful here. I can try to repro later today, but I'm not surprised there are issues because most people I know stick with 32-bit builds even on 64-bit Windows. On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I check-out the latest version of

See bills commit and chris's revert. Please fix. Sent from phone On Apr 29, 2013 8:41 AM, "Keith Walker" <keith.walker at arm.com> wrote: > I fell over this issue yesterday myself with lots of asserts being thrown. > > I think the issue is in lib/IR/AsmWriter.cpp:1618 in the function > AssemblyWriter::printFunction(const Function *F) > > Looking at the code

Hello, I mentioned this problem a year ago here and filed 6792701 and I know it has been discussed since. It should have been fixed in snv_118, but I can still trigger the same problem. This is only triggered if the creation of a large file is aborted, for example by loss of power, crash or SIGINT to mkfile(1M). The bug should probably be reopened but I post it here since some people where

Hi, I check-out the latest version of LLVM and see many failures (on Win64): ******************** 67> FAIL: LLVM :: Transforms/GlobalOpt/zeroinitializer-gep-load.ll (5518 of 7763) 67> ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: Transforms/GlobalOpt/zeroinitializer-gep-load.ll' FAILED ******************** 67> Script: 67> -- 67> W:/LLVM_org/build64/bin/Debug/opt.EXE <

I fell over this issue yesterday myself with lots of asserts being thrown. I think the issue is in lib/IR/AsmWriter.cpp:1618 in the function AssemblyWriter::printFunction(const Function *F) Looking at the code I think the 2nd for loop should be preceded by the test ... if (Idx < AS.getNumSlots()) Not sure why it doesn't fail on other platforms as it looks like it should be a genuine

John removed the assertion in his major alignment tracking patch. I manually did that on the branch in r253380. On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have just tagged 3.7.1-rc1, so it is ready for testing. As a > > reminder,

After having to replace an internal raid card in an X2200 (S10U3 in this case), I can see the disks just fine - and can boot, so the data isn''t completely missing. However, my zpool has gone. # zpool status -x pool: storage state: FAULTED status: One or more devices could not be opened. There are insufficient replicas for the pool to continue functioning. action: Attach the

Hi. I''m in the process of writing an introductory paper on ZFS. The paper is meant to be something that could be given to a systems admin at a site to introduce ZFS and document common procedures for using ZFS. In the paper, I want to document the method for identifying which file has a checksum error. In previous discussions on this alias, I''ve used the following

Hello, currently we're using version 1.0.13 with 32bit file offsets. Is it safe to switch to a new version with largefile support enabled ? We want to reuse existing index/cache or do we have to expect errors with that ? Regards. Martin --------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Preen, Universit?t Freiburg, Institut f?r Informatik Georges-Koehler-Allee 52, Raum

Hello, I am a final year computer engg student and I am planning to implement zfs on linux, I have gone through the articles posted on solaris . Please let me know about the feasibility of zfs to be implemented on linux. waiting for valuable replies. thanks in advance. On 9/14/07, zfs-discuss-request at opensolaris.org <zfs-discuss-request at opensolaris.org> wrote: > Send

Author: jkennedy Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Revision: 931f9f0e5d2fb0b5da5bc6c0f77c10e668f842cf Log message: 4775289 fsck reports wrong state in superblock if there once has existed a largefile 6302747 Performance regression when deleting large files from a logging ufs filesystem 6362734 df output corrupt after under heavy stress Files: update: usr/src/cmd/fs.d/ufs/fsck/utilities.c update:

Full_Name: John Brzustowski Version: R-devel-trunk, R-2.4.0 OS: linux Submission from: (NULL) (206.248.132.197) DESCRIPTION seek() on files larger than 2 gigabytes fails for large values of "where" on i386 linux 2.6.13 (and presumably other 32-bit unix-like platforms). e.g.: > f<-file("3gigabytefile.dat", "rb") > seek(f, 3e9, "start",