From nobody Thu Sep 12 13:29:28 2024 X-Original-To: questions@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4X4JFq4rRDz5WY5Y for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:29:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dch@skunkwerks.at) Received: from fhigh7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh7-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.158]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4X4JFq2198z423t for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:29:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dch@skunkwerks.at) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from phl-compute-02.internal (phl-compute-02.phl.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2775811404E6; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 09:29:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-imap-02 ([10.202.2.81]) by phl-compute-02.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 12 Sep 2024 09:29:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=skunkwerks.at; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1726147790; x=1726234190; bh=GxqnsMuzWMhpTMDXFl0ci29SwqXwPHDd dy8McdTpFQg=; b=JsLvNvxP8XcFu5Qvaqc+wE3xHcGE9T0uq6ecZ3iBp1OVcKYr j5H4355rHNb0KLhbAEH573noYOA1YvKVh22NOURUktUijIeBXb/IA8ebRzTSOvE6 YyjGoAM9/+NquoO9pJtTD8DFpQixNIIZ8yaDjp1Dy3tlsRVdgF4Nf0CaifsubXPr m8HZuyAlxwcw1tuP7FWdf6l8TYLsTV3JbuUt/1SSwnasCyv3vzOe/FQOhcFZcQet HbsSHZPrODkBmMJMyaqn9mgUB+H6GzH49WB1SL/+ebERB2dQdvaMLAm4LWANSTYZ WoAonltCSlVysrNUKQ7hsjtqpjHGwOO0HJqztA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1726147790; x= 1726234190; bh=GxqnsMuzWMhpTMDXFl0ci29SwqXwPHDddy8McdTpFQg=; b=O 8ujmXA20Z7aioeO8kRfoakqm2Q1xgAJQyJU5vjQK2NtQdKmMNA6jnD27LE45ACz4 myTJwwQB0OYAsGaCamxsn6Cr8o84/XELyndyDQLT6QZLLSn4rxqGUJso0+4J2DWI nZTZeTl1yotuiKFMYi0/6C0B5+HlE1xv2J6mn3uQYaICQIdS9EQUcBZ8wT1HVzh/ 67hi0V5ehtnI0KcjYyUayZHdI/TpXgbH0UfCgDkSz2d764kvTqej3B89L+xiW+S6 fSmDhQeGjFsyhW34tdCUGK7TgJIpePJnuTqKI4f9PMqUqnltEOz4+ILk64LlOXYf FDg7yFCHy/8M0QAdP/WHA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudejfedgieeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefoggffhf fvvefkjghfufgtgfesthhqredtredtjeenucfhrhhomhepfdffrghvvgcuvehothhtlhgv hhhusggvrhdfuceouggthhesshhkuhhnkhifvghrkhhsrdgrtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvg hrnhephfduleeuveelheefkeduvdfhtefgvdffvdevtdeiudekueevfeetuddtuedvfeet necuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepuggthh esshhkuhhnkhifvghrkhhsrdgrthdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepvddpmhhouggvpehsmhht phhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepqhhuvghsthhiohhnshesfhhrvggvsghsugdrohhrghdprh gtphhtthhopehfrhgvvggsshgusehguhhshhhirdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ic0e84090:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.phl.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id A343FB00067; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 09:29:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface List-Id: User questions List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:29:28 +0000 From: "Dave Cottlehuber" To: "Dan Mahoney (Ports)" Cc: questions Message-Id: <312af967-e5bf-4e83-b48b-7c2841719373@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <378D100E-FFE1-4DA7-9C52-219863A50A24@gushi.org> References: <378D100E-FFE1-4DA7-9C52-219863A50A24@gushi.org> Subject: Re: Zpool status -- why does a suboptimal pool show as "ONLINE"? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:209242, ipnet:103.168.172.0/24, country:US] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4X4JFq2198z423t On Thu, 12 Sep 2024, at 13:05, Dan Mahoney (Ports) wrote: > Hey there all, > > I have a nagios check that assumes that if I have a suboptimal zfs=20 > zpool, that the word =E2=80=9CDEGRADED=E2=80=9D will appear in the out= put. One disk of=20 > a two-disk mirror seems to have faulted, but the pool still shows as=20 > =E2=80=9CONLINE=E2=80=9D. I know I=E2=80=99ve seen the word =E2=80=9C= DEGRADED=E2=80=9D in the past. What=E2=80=99s=20 > different? > > pool: zroot > state: ONLINE > status: One or more devices are faulted in response to persistent erro= rs. > Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning= in a > degraded state. > action: Replace the faulted device, or use 'zpool clear' to mark the d= evice > repaired. > config: > > NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM > zroot ONLINE 0 0 0 > mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada0p3 FAULTED 4 372 0 too many errors > ada1p3 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > errors: No known data errors > > 14.1, if it matters, the disks are two innolite SATADOM=E2=80=99s. Hi Dan I agree that I would expect the mirror-0 at least to report DEGRADED or similar. Hopefully one of the zfs people clarifies the logic here. Practically, what I do is run: zpool status | grep -v 'with 0 errors' | sha256 and check that this hash remains the same over time. It's obviously different for each pool. Could that help for nagios? A+ Dave