Quote from: meyergru on March 10, 2026, 07:35:46 PMI saw this, too. The culprit may be the HomeAssistant OPNsense plugin. In its default settings, it scans every 30 seconds.I don't use HomeAssistant so I can rule that one out.
find /var/lib/php/sessions -type f | wc -l
277237find /var/lib/php/sessions -type f -delete2026-03-10T12:39:30-XX:XX Error miniupnpd pfctl_get_rules_info: Invalid argument
2026-03-10T12:39:30-XX:XX Informational miniupnpd SOAPAction: urn:schemas-upnp-org:service:WANCommonInterfaceConfig:1#GetTotalBytesSent
2026-03-10T12:39:30-XX:XX Debug miniupnpd Host: <router-ip>:<port>
2026-03-10T12:39:30-XX:XX Informational miniupnpd HTTP REQUEST from <client-ip>:<port> : POST /ctl/CmnIfCfg (HTTP/1.1)
2026-03-10T12:39:30-XX:XX Error miniupnpd pfctl_get_rules_info: Invalid argument
2026-03-10T12:39:30-XX:XX Informational miniupnpd SOAPAction: urn:schemas-upnp-org:service:WANCommonInterfaceConfig:1#GetTotalBytesReceived
2026-03-10T12:39:30-XX:XX Debug miniupnpd Host: <router-ip>:<port>
2026-03-10T12:39:30-XX:XX Informational miniupnpd HTTP REQUEST from <client-ip>:<port> : POST /ctl/CmnIfCfg (HTTP/1.1)
2026-03-10T12:39:30-XX:XX Error miniupnpd pfctl_get_rules_info: Invalid argument
2026-03-10T12:39:00-XX:XX Error miniupnpd pfctl_get_rules_info: Invalid argument
2026-03-10T12:39:00-XX:XX Informational miniupnpd SOAPAction: urn:schemas-upnp-org:service:WANCommonInterfaceConfig:1#GetTotalBytesSent
2026-03-10T12:39:00-XX:XX Debug miniupnpd Host: <router-ip>:<port>
2026-03-10T12:39:00-XX:XX Informational miniupnpd HTTP REQUEST from <client-ip>:<port> : POST /ctl/CmnIfCfg (HTTP/1.1)
2026-03-10T12:39:00-XX:XX Error miniupnpd pfctl_get_rules_info: Invalid argument
2026-03-10T12:39:00-XX:XX Informational miniupnpd SOAPAction: urn:schemas-upnp-org:service:WANCommonInterfaceConfig:1#GetTotalBytesReceived
2026-03-10T12:39:00-XX:XX Debug miniupnpd Host: <router-ip>:<port>
2026-03-10T12:39:00-XX:XX Informational miniupnpd HTTP REQUEST from <client-ip>:<port> : POST /ctl/CmnIfCfg (HTTP/1.1)
2026-03-10T12:39:00-XX:XX Error miniupnpd pfctl_get_rules_info: Invalid argument
2026-03-10T12:38:41-XX:XX Error miniupnpd pfctl_get_rules_info: Invalid argument
2026-03-10T12:38:41-XX:XX Debug miniupnpd sdl_index = <index> <iface>:<mac-redacted>
2026-03-10T12:38:41-XX:XX Debug miniupnpd level=0 type=20
pass in log on aINTERNAL route-to ( wan_gw ) inet from {10.15.4.52/31} to !$rfc5735 keep state label "..." # Log Pass allowed to internet
pass in on aINTERNAL route-to ( wan_gw ) inet from $allowed_internet to !$rfc5735 keep state label "..." # Pass allowed to internet
Quote from: Patrick M. Hausen on March 09, 2026, 11:13:41 PM/sys/module/zfs/... does not exist on FreeBSD.That only raises more questions for me :
https://forums.truenas.com/t/zfs-pool-ko-after-filling-at-100/57356/9
Quote from: drosophila on March 09, 2026, 11:39:07 PMThe reserved 5% on Linux ext4 is for the system so that ordinary users cannot fill up the drive and thus the OS can still operate and root can install stuff.The important thing is that for example your /var/log files won't mess up your system and that's what counts here.
The problem is that updates always are done by root (who is fully entitled to these 5%), so if root fills these up, be it through an update or otherwise, they're gone.
QuoteOn a data pool, this is easily avoided by having only normal users use it for storage (remote root access always is bad even without this).That's why I am surprised that regular "Storage Pools" can have this issue...
At least my (XigmaNAS) pool was perfectly fine when I "ran out of space" on it (partial write, reporting "no space left on device"), but it was non-root users only, so the emergency reserve would have been untouched.
QuoteObviously, this cannot be avoided with RootOnZFS.As long as Mr. Root knows what he is doing it should not happen IMHO.
QuoteIt still is odd that, especially given how wasteful ZFS is, it wouldn't just keep a minimum of spare space to itself regardless of who is accessing it so that at least deletes could still be done.One more thing next to the currently existing thing ?! Who knows... maybe it's not a bad idea...
QuoteThen again, there are so many tunables that might have unintended side-effects which may look like optimizations but end up creating such situations, whereas the defaults are fine?The thing is that people with large setups lose a lot of space with the default setting and then need to lower it to get some space back.