Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #188322 > unrolled thread

debian zfs spl dkms build fails

Started by"Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@pinyon.org>
First post2017-10-26 04:50 +0200
Last post2017-10-26 08:40 +0200
Articles 6 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  debian zfs spl dkms build fails "Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@pinyon.org> - 2017-10-26 04:50 +0200
    Re: debian zfs spl dkms build fails David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2017-10-26 06:20 +0200
      Re: debian zfs spl dkms build fails "Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@pinyon.org> - 2017-10-26 06:30 +0200
        Re: debian zfs spl dkms build fails David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2017-10-26 07:40 +0200
          Re: debian zfs spl dkms build fails "Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@pinyon.org> - 2017-10-26 16:00 +0200
        Re: debian zfs spl dkms build fails <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-26 08:40 +0200

#188322 — debian zfs spl dkms build fails

From"Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@pinyon.org>
Date2017-10-26 04:50 +0200
Subjectdebian zfs spl dkms build fails
Message-ID<uEGp3-853-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
This has been happening for over 2 weeks now:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877694

It has such cheerful effects as:

root@knuth> zpool status
The ZFS modules are not loaded.
Try running '/sbin/modprobe zfs' as root to load them.

The symptom displays via several ways like this:

------------------------------
Deleting module version: 0.6.5.11
completely from the DKMS tree.
------------------------------
Done.
Unpacking zfs-dkms (0.6.5.11-1) over (0.6.5.11-1) ...
Setting up zfs-dkms (0.6.5.11-1) ...
Loading new zfs-0.6.5.11 DKMS files...
Building for 4.13.0-1-amd64
Building initial module for 4.13.0-1-amd64
configure: error:
         *** Please make sure the kmod spl devel <kernel> package for your
         *** distribution is installed then try again.  If that fails you
         *** can specify the location of the spl objects with the
         *** '--with-spl-obj=PATH' option.
Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 4.13.0-1-amd64 (x86_64)
Consult /var/lib/dkms/zfs/0.6.5.11/build/make.log for more information.



So what are we supposed to do?  The system is up, network accessible,
and I'm pulling a current in time backup.  Is there a linux distro that
isn't broken for zfsonlinux distro kernel updates?  Otherwise a complete
reinstall back to the dumb world of ext4, as I need a metal 8 core box
for comparative testing.

Thanks,
Russell

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#188324

FromDavid Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com>
Date2017-10-26 06:20 +0200
Message-ID<uEHO9-Hk-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188322
On 10/25/17 19:42, Russell L. Carter wrote:
> 
> This has been happening for over 2 weeks now:
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877694
> 
> It has such cheerful effects as:
> 
> root@knuth> zpool status
> The ZFS modules are not loaded.
> Try running '/sbin/modprobe zfs' as root to load them.
> 
> The symptom displays via several ways like this:
> 
> ------------------------------
> Deleting module version: 0.6.5.11
> completely from the DKMS tree.
> ------------------------------
> Done.
> Unpacking zfs-dkms (0.6.5.11-1) over (0.6.5.11-1) ...
> Setting up zfs-dkms (0.6.5.11-1) ...
> Loading new zfs-0.6.5.11 DKMS files...
> Building for 4.13.0-1-amd64
> Building initial module for 4.13.0-1-amd64
> configure: error:
>          *** Please make sure the kmod spl devel <kernel> package for your
>          *** distribution is installed then try again.  If that fails you
>          *** can specify the location of the spl objects with the
>          *** '--with-spl-obj=PATH' option.
> Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 4.13.0-1-amd64 
> (x86_64)
> Consult /var/lib/dkms/zfs/0.6.5.11/build/make.log for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> So what are we supposed to do?  The system is up, network accessible,
> and I'm pulling a current in time backup.  Is there a linux distro that
> isn't broken for zfsonlinux distro kernel updates?  Otherwise a complete
> reinstall back to the dumb world of ext4, as I need a metal 8 core box
> for comparative testing.

If you want to debug ZOL and/or Linux, then build from source.


If you want to use ZOL on Debian, use a supported Debian version and 
supported ZOL binary packages:

https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/Debian

Installation

For Debian Stretch, ZFS packages are included in contrib repository.

For Debian Jessie, ZFS packages are provided by backports.

Install kernel headers:

# apt install linux-headers-$(uname -r)

Install zfs packages:

# apt-get install zfs-dkms

If you want to boot from ZFS, you'll need zfs-initramfs package too:

# apt-get install zfs-initramfs


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188325

From"Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@pinyon.org>
Date2017-10-26 06:30 +0200
Message-ID<uEHXP-MG-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188324
Greetings.  Your reply is completely nonresponsive to
the zfs kernel upgrade situation as it is today on debian.

Why did you bother?  It's weird.

I don't actually care very much.  I'm going to go back to
dumb extfs if required.  I'm just fishing for some sanity
here.

Thanks,
Russell

On 10/25/17 21:18, David Christensen wrote:
> On 10/25/17 19:42, Russell L. Carter wrote:
>>
>> This has been happening for over 2 weeks now:
>>
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877694
>>
>> It has such cheerful effects as:
>>
>> root@knuth> zpool status
>> The ZFS modules are not loaded.
>> Try running '/sbin/modprobe zfs' as root to load them.
>>
>> The symptom displays via several ways like this:
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Deleting module version: 0.6.5.11
>> completely from the DKMS tree.
>> ------------------------------
>> Done.
>> Unpacking zfs-dkms (0.6.5.11-1) over (0.6.5.11-1) ...
>> Setting up zfs-dkms (0.6.5.11-1) ...
>> Loading new zfs-0.6.5.11 DKMS files...
>> Building for 4.13.0-1-amd64
>> Building initial module for 4.13.0-1-amd64
>> configure: error:
>>          *** Please make sure the kmod spl devel <kernel> package for 
>> your
>>          *** distribution is installed then try again.  If that fails you
>>          *** can specify the location of the spl objects with the
>>          *** '--with-spl-obj=PATH' option.
>> Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 4.13.0-1-amd64 
>> (x86_64)
>> Consult /var/lib/dkms/zfs/0.6.5.11/build/make.log for more information.
>>
>>
>>
>> So what are we supposed to do?  The system is up, network accessible,
>> and I'm pulling a current in time backup.  Is there a linux distro that
>> isn't broken for zfsonlinux distro kernel updates?  Otherwise a complete
>> reinstall back to the dumb world of ext4, as I need a metal 8 core box
>> for comparative testing.
> 
> If you want to debug ZOL and/or Linux, then build from source.
> 
> 
> If you want to use ZOL on Debian, use a supported Debian version and 
> supported ZOL binary packages:
> 
> https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/Debian
> 
> Installation
> 
> For Debian Stretch, ZFS packages are included in contrib repository.
> 
> For Debian Jessie, ZFS packages are provided by backports.
> 
> Install kernel headers:
> 
> # apt install linux-headers-$(uname -r)
> 
> Install zfs packages:
> 
> # apt-get install zfs-dkms
> 
> If you want to boot from ZFS, you'll need zfs-initramfs package too:
> 
> # apt-get install zfs-initramfs
> 
> 
> David
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188326

FromDavid Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com>
Date2017-10-26 07:40 +0200
Message-ID<uEJ3z-1qw-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188325
On 10/25/17 21:23, Russell L. Carter wrote:
> Greetings.  Your reply is completely nonresponsive to
> the zfs kernel upgrade situation as it is today on debian.
> 
> Why did you bother?  It's weird.
>
> I don't actually care very much.  I'm going to go back to
> dumb extfs if required.  I'm just fishing for some sanity
> here.

Please don't top post.


I bothered because the last time I tried ZOL (Debian 6?), the only 
option was to download the source from LLNL and build it.  Now there are 
official Debian binary packages available.  Thank you for providing the 
stimulus for me to discover that fact.  :-)


It appears that you are attempting to build the "testing" version of ZFS:

     https://packages.debian.org/buster/zfs-dkms


Yet, you expect the reliability of "stable".  Make sure you understand 
the three releases of Debian:

     https://www.debian.org/releases/


If you want stability, run "stable".  If you have the skills and 
interest to help fix bugs, then run "testing" or "unstable".


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188342

From"Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@pinyon.org>
Date2017-10-26 16:00 +0200
Message-ID<uEQRr-64w-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188326
On 10/25/17 22:19, David Christensen wrote:
> On 10/25/17 21:23, Russell L. Carter wrote:
>> Greetings.  Your reply is completely nonresponsive to
>> the zfs kernel upgrade situation as it is today on debian.
>>
>> Why did you bother?  It's weird.
>>
>> I don't actually care very much.  I'm going to go back to
>> dumb extfs if required.  I'm just fishing for some sanity
>> here.
> 
> Please don't top post.
> 
> 
> I bothered because the last time I tried ZOL (Debian 6?), the only 
> option was to download the source from LLNL and build it.  Now there are 
> official Debian binary packages available.  Thank you for providing the 
> stimulus for me to discover that fact.  :-)
> 
> 
> It appears that you are attempting to build the "testing" version of ZFS:
> 
>      https://packages.debian.org/buster/zfs-dkms
> 
> 
> Yet, you expect the reliability of "stable".  Make sure you understand 
> the three releases of Debian:
> 
>      https://www.debian.org/releases/
> 
> 
> If you want stability, run "stable".  If you have the skills and 
> interest to help fix bugs, then run "testing" or "unstable".
> 

I've been running debian 'testing' for 18 years now.  I've been running
zfs on other OS's for 5 years now, some quite large.   Those other OSs
include some I've been running for over 20 years.  It should be inferred
that I've watched a lot of technology get integrated over that time.

Note that my complaint here is that the upgrade process that I've done
literally 1000s of times over that 18 years is now allowed to not only
break the *upgrade* process through broken kernel modules, it has the
added benefit of breaking *existing* working configurations.  That's
quite a packaging accomplishment, for 2017.

I take your commentary as confirmation on what I suspected.  Ideology
somehow has broken the technology integration process.  Oh well.

Out.  And out of using debian for a real OS.  But for 'testing' hey,
it's just great.  I've got my full backup and now I'm going to make
this a stupid box.

Russell



> David
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188328

From<tomas@tuxteam.de>
Date2017-10-26 08:40 +0200
Message-ID<uEJZE-1ZN-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188325
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 09:23:52PM -0700, Russell L. Carter wrote:

[...]

> I don't actually care very much.  I'm going to go back to
> dumb extfs if required.  I'm just fishing for some sanity
> here.

If you're fishing you better use a friendlier bait. Otherwise
your results might disappoint you (hint: this is a totally
voluntary-run mailing list).

Cheers, nevertheless :)
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlnxgrsACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbwjQCcCZe8d/mcfYAeAbkZ1fszHdlL
bboAmwUFYCF4ovsFfxdWzqFvVo+fvqgx
=+y/Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web