Does ZFS handle a file system full situation any better than UFS? I had a ZFS file system run at 100% full for a few days, deleted out the offending files to bring it back down to 75% full, and now in certain directories I cannot issue a ls -la (it hangs) but a ls works fine. Normally in UFS this meant one would need to run a fsck. What does one do for ZFS? Thanks, Mike
Hello Michael,
Sunday, May 27, 2007, 5:13:39 AM, you wrote:
MB> Does ZFS handle a file system full situation any better than UFS? I had
MB> a ZFS file system run at 100% full for a few days, deleted out the
MB> offending files to bring it back down to 75% full, and now in certain
MB> directories I cannot issue a ls -la (it hangs) but a ls works fine.
MB> Normally in UFS this meant one would need to run a fsck. What does one
MB> do for ZFS?
1. I''ve never run at a bug tat after ufs was 100% you need to fsck -
perhaps there''s another problem?
2. with ZFS you do not need to do anything - it should just work.
There was a bug in ZFS that after dataset was full you couldn''t
delete a file - I hope it''s been fixed by now.
--
Best regards,
Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl
http://milek.blogspot.com
Robert Milkowski wrote:> Hello Michael, > > Sunday, May 27, 2007, 5:13:39 AM, you wrote: > > MB> Does ZFS handle a file system full situation any better than UFS? I had > MB> a ZFS file system run at 100% full for a few days, deleted out the > MB> offending files to bring it back down to 75% full, and now in certain > MB> directories I cannot issue a ls -la (it hangs) but a ls works fine. > MB> Normally in UFS this meant one would need to run a fsck. What does one > MB> do for ZFS? > > > 1. I''ve never run at a bug tat after ufs was 100% you need to fsck - > perhaps there''s another problem?Normally if you have a ufs file system hit 100% and you have a very high level of system and application load on the box (that resides in the 100% file system) you will run into inode issues that require a fsck and show themselves by not being about to long list out all their attributes (ls -la). Not a bug, just what happens.> > 2. with ZFS you do not need to do anything - it should just work. > There was a bug in ZFS that after dataset was full you couldn''t > delete a file - I hope it''s been fixed by now. > > >
Michael Barrett wrote:> Robert Milkowski wrote: >> Hello Michael, >> >> Sunday, May 27, 2007, 5:13:39 AM, you wrote: >> >> MB> Does ZFS handle a file system full situation any better than UFS? >> I had >> MB> a ZFS file system run at 100% full for a few days, deleted out the >> MB> offending files to bring it back down to 75% full, and now in >> certain MB> directories I cannot issue a ls -la (it hangs) but a ls >> works fine. MB> Normally in UFS this meant one would need to run a >> fsck. What does one >> MB> do for ZFS? >> >> >> 1. I''ve never run at a bug tat after ufs was 100% you need to fsck - >> perhaps there''s another problem? > > Normally if you have a ufs file system hit 100% and you have a very high > level of system and application load on the box (that resides in the > 100% file system) you will run into inode issues that require a fsck and > show themselves by not being about to long list out all their attributes > (ls -la). Not a bug, just what happens.I''ve done extensive testing of this condition and have never found a need for fsck. Can you reproduce this? If so, then please file a bug! -- richard
Atleaset in my experience, I saw Corruptions when ZFS file system was full. So far there is no way to check the file system consistency on ZFS (to the best of my knowledge). ZFS people claiming that ZFS file system is always consistent and there is no need for FSCK command. >>>I cannot issue a ls -la (it hangs) but a ls works fine Masthan: On a ZPOOL it is always good to reserve 20% of the pool space for storing meta data . And not to use this 20% space for any other purpose. In your case, flush the data and then sync the zpool, still if you are seeing the problem reboot your machine. If it is really bad to you reboot also wont work, in that case increase the ZPOOL space. -Masthan Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at Sun.COM> wrote: Michael Barrett wrote:> Robert Milkowski wrote: >> Hello Michael, >> >> Sunday, May 27, 2007, 5:13:39 AM, you wrote: >> >> MB> Does ZFS handle a file system full situation any better than UFS? >> I had >> MB> a ZFS file system run at 100% full for a few days, deleted out the >> MB> offending files to bring it back down to 75% full, and now in >> certain MB> directories I cannot issue a ls -la (it hangs) but a ls >> works fine. MB> Normally in UFS this meant one would need to run a >> fsck. What does one >> MB> do for ZFS? >> >> >> 1. I''ve never run at a bug tat after ufs was 100% you need to fsck - >> perhaps there''s another problem? > > Normally if you have a ufs file system hit 100% and you have a very high > level of system and application load on the box (that resides in the > 100% file system) you will run into inode issues that require a fsck and > show themselves by not being about to long list out all their attributes > (ls -la). Not a bug, just what happens.I''ve done extensive testing of this condition and have never found a need for fsck. Can you reproduce this? If so, then please file a bug! -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss --------------------------------- Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight''s top picks on Yahoo! TV. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20070528/107b29a5/attachment.html>
Michael Barrett wrote:> Normally if you have a ufs file system hit 100% and you have a very high > level of system and application load on the box (that resides in the > 100% file system) you will run into inode issues that require a fsck and > show themselves by not being about to long list out all their attributes > (ls -la). Not a bug, just what happens.I don''t see how something like this can not be a bug. Don''t tell me this is a feature and UFS is working as per design! ;) Cheers Manoj
dudekula mastan wrote:> Atleaset in my experience, I saw Corruptions when ZFS file system was > full. So far there is no way to check the file system consistency on ZFS > (to the best of my knowledge). ZFS people claiming that ZFS file system > is always consistent and there is no need for FSCK command.ZFS is always consistent on disk. This does not mean there cannot be data loss - especially on an unreplicated pool. ZFS can self heal only when there is redundancy in the pool. If you do see corruptions, you should probably report then here along with the zpool configuration details and test cases if any. Please do file bugs. Cheers Manoj
dudekula mastan wrote:> Atleaset in my experience, I saw Corruptions when ZFS file system was > full. So far there is no way to check the file system consistency on ZFS > (to the best of my knowledge). ZFS people claiming that ZFS file system > is always consistent and there is no need for FSCK command. > > >>>I cannot issue a ls -la (it hangs) but a ls works fine > > Masthan: On a ZPOOL it is always good to reserve 20% of the pool space > for storing meta data . And not to use this 20% space for any other > purpose. In your case, flush the data and then sync the zpool, still if > you are seeing the problem reboot your machine. If it is really bad to > you reboot also wont work, in that case increase the ZPOOL space.This is where I am currently. This is a zone whose zonepath is a zfs file system. The zpool is an entire SCSI drive. The zone is the only thing that uses this zfs file system. Unfortunately the zoneadm -z name halt command is hanging. I think I''m going to have reboot the global zone.> > -Masthan > > */Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at Sun.COM>/* wrote: > > Michael Barrett wrote: > > Robert Milkowski wrote: > >> Hello Michael, > >> > >> Sunday, May 27, 2007, 5:13:39 AM, you wrote: > >> > >> MB> Does ZFS handle a file system full situation any better than > UFS? > >> I had > >> MB> a ZFS file system run at 100% full for a few days, deleted > out the > >> MB> offending files to bring it back down to 75% full, and now in > >> certain MB> directories I cannot issue a ls -la (it hangs) but a ls > >> works fine. MB> Normally in UFS this meant one would need to run a > >> fsck. What does one > >> MB> do for ZFS? > >> > >> > >> 1. I''ve never run at a bug tat after ufs was 100% you need to fsck - > >> perhaps there''s another problem? > > > > Normally if you have a ufs file system hit 100% and you have a > very high > > level of system and application load on the box (that resides in the > > 100% file system) you will run into inode issues that require a > fsck and > > show themselves by not being about to long list out all their > attributes > > (ls -la). Not a bug, just what happens. > > I''ve done extensive testing of this condition and have never found a > need > for fsck. Can you reproduce this? If so, then please file a bug! > -- richard > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight''s top picks > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48220/*http://tv.yahoo.com/> on Yahoo! TV.
Manoj Joseph wrote:> Michael Barrett wrote: > >> Normally if you have a ufs file system hit 100% and you have a very >> high level of system and application load on the box (that resides in >> the 100% file system) you will run into inode issues that require a >> fsck and show themselves by not being about to long list out all their >> attributes (ls -la). Not a bug, just what happens. > > I don''t see how something like this can not be a bug. Don''t tell me this > is a feature and UFS is working as per design! ;)I''m just a user in this area so I cannot comment in the design. I guess I figured if you run at 100% full for an unknown amount of time with unknown system load where the root''s kernel reserve is out of room, you will see expected inode corruption. Granted there should be a mechanism to fix the said corruption once the file system is unmounted.> > Cheers > Manoj
Michael Barrett wrote:> Does ZFS handle a file system full situation any better than UFS? I had > a ZFS file system run at 100% full for a few days, deleted out the > offending files to bring it back down to 75% full, and now in certain > directories I cannot issue a ls -la (it hangs) but a ls works fine.As others have mentioned, this is most likely a bug. Please file a bug report, and make available a crash dump taken while the ''ls -la'' is hung. Be sure to note what bits you are running (eg, which build of nevada or update of s10). thanks, --matt