From: Tomasz Pala <gotar@polanet.pl>
To: Linux fs Btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Unexpected raid1 behaviour
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:34:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171220083448.GA25687@polanet.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJCQCtQPmov53Q=BTzywawkW2froYx49M+ez9WZsRy2cp-b3+w@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 16:59:39 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Sth like this? I got such problem a few months ago, my solution was
>> accepted upstream:
>> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/0e8856d25ab71764a279c2377ae593c0f2460d8f
>
> I can't parse this commit. In particular I can't tell how long it
> waits, or what triggers the end to waiting.
The point is - it doesn't wait at all. Instead, every 'ready' btrfs
device triggers event on all the pending devices. Consider 3-device
filesystem consisting of /dev/sd[abd] with /dev/sdc being different,
standalone btrfs:
/dev/sda -> 'not ready'
/dev/sdb -> 'not ready'
/dev/sdc -> 'ready', triggers /dev/sda -> 'not ready' and /dev/sdb - still 'not ready'
/dev/sdc -> kernel says 'ready', triggers /dev/sda - 'ready' and /dev/sdb -> 'ready'
This way all the parts of a volume are marked as ready, so systemd won't
refuse mounting using legacy device nodes like /dev/sda.
This particular solution depends on kernel returning 'btrfs ready',
which would obviously not work for degraded arrays unless the btrfs.ko
handles some 'missing' or 'mount_degraded' kernel cmdline options
_before_ actually _trying_ to mount it with -o degraded.
And there is a logical problem with this - _which_ array components
should be ignored? Consider:
volume1: /dev/sda /dev/sdb
volume2: /dev/sdc /dev/sdd-broken
If /dev/sdd is missing from the system, it would never be scanned, so
/dev/sdc would be pending. It cannot be assembled just in time of
scanning alone, because the same would happen with /dev/sda and there
would be desync with /dev/sdb, which IS available - a few moments later.
This is the place for the timeout you've mentioned - there should be
*some* decent timeout allowing all the devices to show up (udev waits
for 90 seconds by default or x-systemd.device-timeout=N from fstab).
After such timeout, I'd like to tell the kernel: "no more devices, give
me all the remaining btrfs volumes in degraded mode if possible". By
"give me btrfs vulumes" I mean "mark them as 'ready'" so the udev could
fire it's rules. And if there would be anything for udev to distinguish
'ready' from 'ready-degraded' one could easily compose some notification
scripting on top of it, including sending e-mail to sysadmin.
Is there anything that would make the kernel do the above?
--
Tomasz Pala <gotar@pld-linux.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-20 8:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-16 19:50 Unexpected raid1 behaviour Dark Penguin
2017-12-17 11:58 ` Duncan
2017-12-17 15:48 ` Peter Grandi
2017-12-17 20:42 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-18 8:49 ` Anand Jain
2017-12-18 8:49 ` Anand Jain
2017-12-18 10:36 ` Peter Grandi
2017-12-18 12:10 ` Nikolay Borisov
2017-12-18 13:43 ` Anand Jain
2017-12-18 22:28 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-18 22:29 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-19 12:30 ` Adam Borowski
2017-12-19 12:54 ` Andrei Borzenkov
2017-12-19 12:59 ` Peter Grandi
2017-12-18 13:06 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-12-18 19:43 ` Tomasz Pala
2017-12-18 22:01 ` Peter Grandi
2017-12-19 12:46 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-12-19 12:25 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-12-19 14:46 ` Tomasz Pala
2017-12-19 16:35 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-12-19 17:56 ` Tomasz Pala
2017-12-19 19:47 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-19 21:17 ` Tomasz Pala
2017-12-20 0:08 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-23 4:08 ` Tomasz Pala
2017-12-23 5:23 ` Duncan
2017-12-20 16:53 ` Andrei Borzenkov
2017-12-20 16:57 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-12-20 20:02 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-20 20:07 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-20 20:14 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-12-21 1:34 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-21 11:49 ` Andrei Borzenkov
2017-12-19 20:11 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-12-19 21:58 ` Tomasz Pala
2017-12-20 13:10 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-12-19 23:53 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-20 13:12 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-12-19 18:31 ` George Mitchell
2017-12-19 20:28 ` Tomasz Pala
2017-12-19 19:35 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-19 20:41 ` Tomasz Pala
2017-12-19 20:47 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-12-19 22:23 ` Tomasz Pala
2017-12-20 13:33 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-12-20 17:28 ` Duncan
2017-12-21 11:44 ` Andrei Borzenkov
2017-12-21 12:27 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-12-22 16:05 ` Tomasz Pala
2017-12-22 21:04 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-23 2:52 ` Tomasz Pala
2017-12-23 5:40 ` Duncan
2017-12-19 23:59 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-20 8:34 ` Tomasz Pala [this message]
2017-12-20 8:51 ` Tomasz Pala
2017-12-20 19:49 ` Chris Murphy
2017-12-18 5:11 ` Anand Jain
2017-12-18 1:20 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-12-18 13:31 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2018-01-12 12:26 ` Dark Penguin
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=20171220083448.GA25687@polanet.pl \
--to=gotar@polanet.pl \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.