> XFS+RAID5...
>
> Below, Neil Brown says, "If I were the author of the filesystem
> I would be worried."
>
> Are the authors of the filesystem worried? ;)
I responded to this when the original message went out, and no one
followed up on my suggestions. I am currently on the other side of
the Pacific ocean and have too a heavy meeting schedule to get involved
in this right now, maybe Eric can dig out my original message to the
xfs list and resend it.
Steve
>
> (I'm CCing this to both the linux-xfs and linux-raid lists; hope
> no-one minds...)
>
> Andrew Klaassen
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 08:21:05PM +1000,
> Neil Brown wrote:
>
> > On Friday August 17, ak@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > > kernel: raid5: multiple 1 requests for sector 32029440
> > ...
> > > kernel: raid5: multiple 1 requests for sector 40
> > > kernel: raid5: multiple 1 requests for sector 76260224
> > > (etc)
>
> > On Friday August 24, eyal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > > I noticed this message recently. What does it mean? Is is harmfull?
> > >
> > > Running 2.4.9 with xfs.
>
> > It means that while raid5 had an outstanding write request on a
> > particular sector, it received another write request for the same
> > sector.
> >
> > It trys to do the right thing and write them both out in the order
> > that it received them, but it is a bit of a worry that any filesystem
> > would do this. I'm guessing that Andrew is using XFS too. Is that
> > right?
> >
> > While raid5 tries to keep the requests in order, and I suspect other
> > drivers do to, I don't think that it is reasonable to assume that no
> > device driver will ever re-order two requests for the same sector.
> > If I were the author of the filesystem I would be worried.
> >
> > NeilBrown
|