Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Nonsensical zpool status output during scrub #8891

Closed
tc1415 opened this issue Jun 12, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

Nonsensical zpool status output during scrub #8891

tc1415 opened this issue Jun 12, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

@tc1415
Copy link

tc1415 commented Jun 12, 2019

System information

Type Version/Name
Distribution Name Fedora
Distribution Version 30
Linux Kernel 5.1.7
Architecture x86_64
ZFS Version 0.8.0
SPL Version -

Describe the problem you're observing

After setting a scrub running and waiting a bit, zpool status produces nonsensical output reporting it has scanned many TB of data on a pool with only 212 GB of data in it.

 state: ONLINE
  scan: scrub in progress since Wed Jun 12 14:12:54 2019
        212G scanned at 325M/s, 245T issued at 375G/s, 212G total
        0B repaired, 118068.85% done, no estimated completion time
config:

        NAME              STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
        pool              ONLINE       0     0     0
          encrypted_nvme  ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors

The man page notes that it can "slightly" exceed 100 % but this is three orders-of-magnitude higher!

Describe how to reproduce the problem

zpool scrub pool
Wait a bit (or do watch zpool status pool and watch it)
zpool status pool
Observe output.

Include any warning/errors/backtraces from the system logs

@DeHackEd
Copy link
Contributor

Already fixed in #8766, will be 0.8.1

@drescherjm
Copy link

I was looking for that but could not find it in a quick search.

@tc1415
Copy link
Author

tc1415 commented Jun 12, 2019

Oh, excellent. I presume the issue is entirely cosmetic and the underlying scrub operation does what it is supposed to? If so I'll just ignore it and wait for 0.8.1 :-)

@behlendorf
Copy link
Contributor

@tc1415 that's right. It's entirely cosmetic and the underlying scrub does correctly verify everything.

@tc1415
Copy link
Author

tc1415 commented Jun 23, 2019

Confirmed fixed in 0.8.1, so closing.

@tc1415 tc1415 closed this as completed Jun 23, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants