From: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com>
To: Wol's lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk>,
Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>,
Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-lvm@redhat.com, Linux-RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Add udev-md-raid-safe-timeouts.rules
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:15:25 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <65575762-1c14-e252-a3fd-0003ce82ca36@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <002ab104-82ad-0187-8bd0-b0b55338ab83@youngman.org.uk>
On 2018-04-16 11:02, Wol's lists wrote:
> On 16/04/18 12:43, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> On 2018-04-15 21:04, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> I just ran into this:
>>> https://github.com/neilbrown/mdadm/pull/32/commits/af1ddca7d5311dfc9ed60a5eb6497db1296f1bec
>>>
>>>
>>> This solution is inadequate, can it be made more generic? This isn't
>>> an md specific problem, it affects Btrfs and LVM as well. And in fact
>>> raid0, and even none raid setups.
>>>
>>> There is no good reason to prevent deep recovery, which is what
>>> happens with the default command timer of 30 seconds, with this class
>>> of drive. Basically that value is going to cause data loss for the
>>> single device and also raid0 case, where the reset happens before deep
>>> recovery has a chance. And even if deep recovery fails to return user
>>> data, what we need to see is the proper error message: read error UNC,
>>> rather than a link reset message which just obfuscates the problem.
>>
>> This has been discussed at least once here before (probably more
>> times, hard to be sure since it usually comes up as a side discussion
>> in an only marginally related thread).
>
> Sorry, but where is "here"? This message is cross-posted to about three
> lists at least ...
Oops, didn't see the extra lists listed. In this case, discussed
previously on the BTRFS ML.
>
> Â Last I knew, the consensus here was
>> that it needs to be changed upstream in the kernel, not by adding a
>> udev rule because while the value is technically system policy, the
>> default policy is brain-dead for anything but the original disks it
>> was i9ntended for (30 seconds works perfectly fine for actual SCSI
>> devices because they behave sanely in the face of media errors, but
>> it's horribly inadequate for ATA devices).
>>
>> To re-iterate what I've said before on the subject:
>>
> imho (and it's probably going to be a pain to implement :-) there should
> be a soft time-out and a hard time-out. The soft time-out should trigger
> "drive is taking too long to respond" messages that end up in a log - so
> that people who actually care can keep a track of this sort of thing.
> The hard timeout should be the current set-up, where the kernel just
> gives up.
Agreed, although as pointed out by Roger in his reply to this, it kind
of already works this way in some cases.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-17 11:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-16 1:04 [linux-lvm] Add udev-md-raid-safe-timeouts.rules Chris Murphy
2018-04-16 11:43 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2018-04-16 15:02 ` Wol's lists
2018-04-16 15:19 ` Roger Heflin
2018-04-17 11:15 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn [this message]
2018-04-16 17:10 ` Chris Murphy
2018-04-16 17:33 ` Alan Stern
2018-04-17 11:28 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=65575762-1c14-e252-a3fd-0003ce82ca36@gmail.com \
--to=ahferroin7@gmail.com \
--cc=antlists@youngman.org.uk \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-lvm@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lists@colorremedies.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).