Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:48:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0-r574664 (2007-09-11) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.0-r574664 Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m5QEm4U8005843 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:48:04 -0700 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1214491744-489402450000-NocioJ X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from server515.appriver.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 2277611D7315 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server515.appriver.com (server515i.exghost.com [72.32.253.75]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id n8RWxALNiKaOYLAx for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.2.0) with PIPE id 47202023; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:49:02 -0500 Received: from FE1.exchange.rackspace.com ([72.32.49.5] verified) by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with ESMTP id 47202016; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:48:58 -0500 Received: from 34093-C3-EVS3.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.161]) by FE1.exchange.rackspace.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:48:57 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: [PATCH] disable queue flag test in barrier check Subject: RE: [PATCH] disable queue flag test in barrier check Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:47:19 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <486398B7.50306@sandeen.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PATCH] disable queue flag test in barrier check Thread-Index: AcjXmmk5/1pKARn0SJeYqGkv09DhYAAAD1iQ References: <486307EA.7080007@sandeen.net> <48635284.3060001@sgi.com> <486398B7.50306@sandeen.net> From: "David Lethe" To: "Eric Sandeen" , "Timothy Shimmin" Cc: "xfs-oss" , "LinuxRaid" , "NeilBrown" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2008 14:48:57.0747 (UTC) FILETIME=[C35ACE30:01C8D79B] X-Policy: GLOBAL - santools.com X-Policy: GLOBAL - santools.com X-Policy: GLOBAL - santools.com X-Policy: GLOBAL - santools.com X-Policy: GLOBAL - santools.com X-Policy: GLOBAL - santools.com X-Primary: david@santools.com X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide X-ALLOW: david@santools.com ALLOWED X-Virus-Scan: V- X-Note: Spam Tests Failed: X-Country-Path: PRIVATE->UNITED STATES->UNITED STATES X-Note-Sending-IP: 72.32.49.5 X-Note-Reverse-DNS: fe1.exchange.rackspace.com X-Note-WHTLIST: david@santools.com X-Note: User Rule Hits: X-Note: Global Rule Hits: 81 82 83 84 150 X-Note: Mail Class: ALLOWEDSENDER X-Barracuda-Connect: server515i.exghost.com[72.32.253.75] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1214491745 X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by cuda.sgi.com at sgi.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -2.02 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-2.02 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=2.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=2.1 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.1, rules version 3.1.54398 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/6021/Wed Feb 27 15:55:48 2008 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by oss.sgi.com id m5QEm4U8005852 X-archive-position: 16579 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: david@santools.com Precedence: bulk X-list: xfs Fyi - related problem is seen with solaris & zfs when users attach them to hardware-based RAID subsystems. The vendors had to make firmware tweaks to address solaris's flush-to-disk-after-all-writes. Not sure what you mean about non-volatile vs. volatile write cache, however. If you want to see if write cache is enabled on a disk drive, or Even a logical disk on a hardware-based RAId, under Linux, then google "mode page editor" for lots of choices. Also look up zfs write cache raid and you'll get information that you can just as easily apply to Linux implementations of md. -----Original Message----- From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Eric Sandeen Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:25 AM To: Timothy Shimmin Cc: xfs-oss; LinuxRaid; NeilBrown; jeremy@sgi.comwe Subject: Re: [PATCH] disable queue flag test in barrier check Timothy Shimmin wrote: > Also from memory, I believe Neil checked this removal into the SLES10sp1 tree > and some sgi boxes started having slow downs > (looking at Dave's email below - we were not wanting to tell them > to use nobarrier but needed it to work by default - I forget now). But that's an admin issue. The way it is now, for example a home user of md raid1 (me!) can't run barriers even if they wanted to. Until there is a way to know if a write cache is non-volatile the only safe option is to enable barriers when possible. > 6. >> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:57:24 +1000 >> From: Dave Chinner >> To: Eric Sandeen >> Cc: LinuxRaid , xfs-oss >> Subject: Re: md raid1 passes barriers, but xfs doesn't use them? >> >> Yeah, the problem was that last time this check was removed was >> that a bunch of existing hardware had barriers enabled on them when >> not necessary (e.g. had NVRAM) and they went 5x slower on MD raid1 >> devices. Having to change the root drive config on a wide install >> base was considered much more of support pain than leaving the >> check there. I guess that was more of a distro upgrade issue than >> a mainline problem, but that's the history. Hence I think we >> should probably do whatever everyone else is doing here.... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dave. > > So I guess my question is whether there are cases where we are > going to be in trouble again. > Jeremy, do you see some problems? FWIW, the problem *I* foresee is that some people are going to slow down when using the defaults, yes, because barriers will start working again. But I don't see any other safe way around it. Education would be in order, I suppose. :) -Eric > --Tim > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html