| To: | Michael Tokarev <mjt@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Kernel 2.6.19.2 New RAID 5 Bug (oops when writing Samba -> RAID5) |
| From: | Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:59:19 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Alan Piszcz <ap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <45B5ECAA.6000100@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701200718290.29223@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <45B5261B.1050104@xxxxxxxxxx> <17845.13256.284461.992275@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701230556050.8978@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <45B5ECAA.6000100@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote: > Justin Piszcz wrote: > [] > > Is this a bug that can or will be fixed or should I disable pre-emption on > > critical and/or server machines? > > Disabling pre-emption on critical and/or server machines seems to be a good > idea in the first place. IMHO anyway.. ;) > > /mjt > So for a server system, the following options should be as follows: Preemption Model (No Forced Preemption (Server)) ---> [ ] Preempt The Big Kernel Lock Also, my mobo has HPET timer support in the BIOS, is there any reason to use this on a server? I do run X on it via the Intel 965 chipset video. So bottom line is make sure not to use preemption on servers or else you will get weird spinlock/deadlocks on RAID devices--GOOD To know! Thanks! Justin. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Kernel 2.6.19.2 New RAID 5 Bug (oops when writing Samba -> RAID5), Justin Piszcz |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Kernel 2.6.19.2 New RAID 5 Bug (oops when writing Samba -> RAID5), Michael Tokarev |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Kernel 2.6.19.2 New RAID 5 Bug (oops when writing Samba -> RAID5), Justin Piszcz |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Kernel 2.6.19.2 New RAID 5 Bug (oops when writing Samba -> RAID5), Michael Tokarev |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |