Re: unusual ZFS issue

From: Xin LI <delphij_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:36:21 UTC
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:32 PM Ronald Klop <ronald@freebsd.org> wrote:

> Did the IO error occur before or during the scrub?
>

This doesn't really matter.  Regular reads can discover checksum errors and
be reflected in zpool status too.



>
> Regards,
> Ronald.
>
>
> On 12/14/23 23:29, Lexi Winter wrote:
> > On 14 Dec 2023, at 22:25, Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Try "zpool status -x" and see if it would show something useful?
> >
> > the output seems to be the same as ‘zpool status -v’:
> >
> > # zpool status -xv
> >    pool: data
> >   state: ONLINE
> > status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data
> >       corruption.  Applications may be affected.
> > action: Restore the file in question if possible.  Otherwise restore the
> >       entire pool from backup.
> >     see: https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/msg/ZFS-8000-8A
> >    scan: scrub in progress since Thu Dec 14 18:58:21 2023
> >       11.5T / 18.8T scanned at 962M/s, 8.71T / 18.8T issued at 726M/s
> >       0B repaired, 46.41% done, 04:02:02 to go
> > config:
> >
> >       NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
> >       data        ONLINE       0     0     0
> >         raidz2-0  ONLINE       0     0     0
> >           da4p1   ONLINE       0     0     0
> >           da6p1   ONLINE       0     0     0
> >           da5p1   ONLINE       0     0     0
> >           da7p1   ONLINE       0     0     0
> >           da1p1   ONLINE       0     0     0
> >           da0p1   ONLINE       0     0     0
> >           da3p1   ONLINE       0     0     0
> >           da2p1   ONLINE       0     0     0
> >       logs
> >         mirror-2  ONLINE       0     0     0
> >           ada0p4  ONLINE       0     0     0
> >           ada1p4  ONLINE       0     0     0
> >       cache
> >         ada1p5    ONLINE       0     0     0
> >         ada0p5    ONLINE       0     0     0
> >
> > errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files:
> >
> > i think this is expected since -x just filters the output to show pools
> with errors?
> >
> >       -x      Only display status for pools that are exhibiting errors
> or are
> >               otherwise unavailable.  Warnings about pools not using the
> latest
> >               on-disk format will not be included.
> >
> >       thanks, lexi.
>
>