Project

General

Profile

Bug #15915

After Upgrading 9.3 to 9.10 Automatic Restart my NAS Box

Added by Vijay Nayani over 4 years ago. Updated over 3 years ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Nice to have
Assignee:
Chris Torek
Category:
OS
Target version:
Severity:
New
Reason for Closing:
Reason for Blocked:
Needs QA:
Yes
Needs Doc:
Yes
Needs Merging:
Yes
Needs Automation:
No
Support Suite Ticket:
n/a
Hardware Configuration:
ChangeLog Required:
No

Description

Dear All,

After Upgrading 9.3 to 9.10 Automatic Restart my NAS Box five to eight time per day, i am facing this issue last 35 days. i am unable to resolve problem. please help me to resolve problem.

find a attachment of debug.

Thanks,

Vijay Nayani

History

#1 Updated by Sean Fagan over 4 years ago

  • Category changed from 1 to 137
  • Assignee changed from Sean Fagan to Alexander Motin

I suspect you have bad hardware. Not sure what part, though.

Tracing pid 19 tid 100151 td 0xfffff8000759e960
zrl_add_impl() at zrl_add_impl+0x12/frame 0xfffffe0215c77880
dbuf_rele_and_unlock() at dbuf_rele_and_unlock+0x1a5/frame 0xfffffe0215c77930
sa_handle_destroy() at sa_handle_destroy+0x80/frame 0xfffffe0215c77960
zfs_zinactive() at zfs_zinactive+0x104/frame 0xfffffe0215c779a0
zfs_freebsd_reclaim() at zfs_freebsd_reclaim+0x66/frame 0xfffffe0215c779d0
VOP_RECLAIM_APV() at VOP_RECLAIM_APV+0xa7/frame 0xfffffe0215c77a00
vgonel() at vgonel+0x221/frame 0xfffffe0215c77a70
vnlru_free() at vnlru_free+0x1dd/frame 0xfffffe0215c77ae0
vnlru_proc() at vnlru_proc+0xa1/frame 0xfffffe0215c77b70
fork_exit() at fork_exit+0x9a/frame 0xfffffe0215c77bb0
fork_trampoline() at fork_trampoline+0xe/frame 0xfffffe0215c77bb0

#2 Updated by Alexander Motin over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Unscreened to Screened

#3 Avatar?id=14398&size=24x24 Updated by Kris Moore almost 4 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Alexander Motin to Chris Torek
  • Priority changed from No priority to Nice to have
  • Target version set to 9.10.1-U3

Chris, can you investigate his debug? If you suspect bad-hardware, lets go ahead and close this one out.

#4 Avatar?id=14398&size=24x24 Updated by Kris Moore almost 4 years ago

  • Target version changed from 9.10.1-U3 to 9.10.2

#5 Updated by Vijay Nayani almost 4 years ago

Hi, First of all Thank you for your prompt response. I have managed to find the issue within a RAM module due to your inputs only.

Query Out of curiosity: From which parameter within the log text did you managed to identify the issue within the hardware.

I thoroughly appreciate your help and support.

#6 Avatar?id=14398&size=24x24 Updated by Kris Moore almost 4 years ago

  • Target version changed from 9.10.2 to 9.10.2-U1

#7 Avatar?id=14398&size=24x24 Updated by Kris Moore over 3 years ago

  • Target version changed from 9.10.2-U1 to 9.10.2-U2

#8 Updated by Chris Torek over 3 years ago

I just noticed this in my list (I haven't been paying attention to all the "nice to have" bugs for quite a while...).

Sean is the one who suspected bad hardware. I'm not sure why he came to that conclusion.

I have an old Intel box at home that has no ECC RAM and it had a bad RAM chip that I only found by running memtest86+ on it. I had no real proof, just knowing that it was non-ECC and was crashing in ways that did not repeat exactly was sufficient to prompt me to run the memory tester.

(The real lesson is, always try to get ECC hardware. ECC systems detect and correct single bit RAM errors, and usually detect, but can't correct, multi-bit errors.)

#9 Updated by Chris Torek over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Screened to Closed

#10 Avatar?id=14398&size=24x24 Updated by Kris Moore over 3 years ago

  • Target version changed from 9.10.2-U2 to N/A

#11 Updated by Dru Lavigne almost 3 years ago

  • File deleted (debug-fileserver-20160613140013.tgz)

Also available in: Atom PDF