From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@backtobasicsmgmt.com>
To: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-raid maillist <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-lvm@sistina.com
Subject: [linux-lvm] Re: Reproducable OOPS with MD RAID-5 on 2.6.0-test11
Date: Tue Dec 2 07:16:02 2003 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3FCC906C.5040907@backtobasicsmgmt.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031202211002.C2009778@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
Nathan Scott wrote:
> One thing that might be of interest - XFS does tend to pass
> variable size requests down to the block layer, and this has
> tripped up md and other drivers in 2.4 in the distant past.
>
> Log IO is typically 512 byte aligned (as opposed to block or
> page size aligned), as are IOs into several of XFS' metadata
> structures.
Hey, thanks for the pointer! I think we're getting somewhere now. Here's
a recap of the tested combinations:
XFS on raw disk: OK
XFS on LVM2 on single disk: OK
XFS on LVM2 on RAID-5: fails
ext2 on LVM2 on RAID-5: OK
I just tested XFS on LVM2 on RAID-5 using "-l sunit=8" while creating
the filesystem to force log writes be block-sized and block-aligned;
this seems to work :-) I have not been able to force a failure using my
test script, although ATM the system is still running a RAID-5 resync of
the array, but that should only make the problem more likely, not less.
So, this does appear to be an md/dm stacking problem, that is exposed by
XFS sending non-block-sized and/or non-block-aligned IOs.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@backtobasicsmgmt.com>
To: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-raid maillist <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-lvm@sistina.com
Subject: Re: Reproducable OOPS with MD RAID-5 on 2.6.0-test11
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:15:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3FCC906C.5040907@backtobasicsmgmt.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031202211002.C2009778@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
Nathan Scott wrote:
> One thing that might be of interest - XFS does tend to pass
> variable size requests down to the block layer, and this has
> tripped up md and other drivers in 2.4 in the distant past.
>
> Log IO is typically 512 byte aligned (as opposed to block or
> page size aligned), as are IOs into several of XFS' metadata
> structures.
Hey, thanks for the pointer! I think we're getting somewhere now. Here's
a recap of the tested combinations:
XFS on raw disk: OK
XFS on LVM2 on single disk: OK
XFS on LVM2 on RAID-5: fails
ext2 on LVM2 on RAID-5: OK
I just tested XFS on LVM2 on RAID-5 using "-l sunit=8" while creating
the filesystem to force log writes be block-sized and block-aligned;
this seems to work :-) I have not been able to force a failure using my
test script, although ATM the system is still running a RAID-5 resync of
the array, but that should only make the problem more likely, not less.
So, this does appear to be an md/dm stacking problem, that is exposed by
XFS sending non-block-sized and/or non-block-aligned IOs.
_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@sistina.com
http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@backtobasicsmgmt.com>
To: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-raid maillist <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-lvm@sistina.com
Subject: Re: Reproducable OOPS with MD RAID-5 on 2.6.0-test11
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:15:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3FCC906C.5040907@backtobasicsmgmt.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031202211002.C2009778@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
Nathan Scott wrote:
> One thing that might be of interest - XFS does tend to pass
> variable size requests down to the block layer, and this has
> tripped up md and other drivers in 2.4 in the distant past.
>
> Log IO is typically 512 byte aligned (as opposed to block or
> page size aligned), as are IOs into several of XFS' metadata
> structures.
Hey, thanks for the pointer! I think we're getting somewhere now. Here's
a recap of the tested combinations:
XFS on raw disk: OK
XFS on LVM2 on single disk: OK
XFS on LVM2 on RAID-5: fails
ext2 on LVM2 on RAID-5: OK
I just tested XFS on LVM2 on RAID-5 using "-l sunit=8" while creating
the filesystem to force log writes be block-sized and block-aligned;
this seems to work :-) I have not been able to force a failure using my
test script, although ATM the system is still running a RAID-5 resync of
the array, but that should only make the problem more likely, not less.
So, this does appear to be an md/dm stacking problem, that is exposed by
XFS sending non-block-sized and/or non-block-aligned IOs.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-12-02 7:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-12-01 14:06 Reproducable OOPS with MD RAID-5 on 2.6.0-test11 Kevin P. Fleming
2003-12-01 14:11 ` Jens Axboe
2003-12-01 14:15 ` Kevin P. Fleming
2003-12-01 15:51 ` Jens Axboe
2003-12-01 22:04 ` [linux-lvm] " Kevin P. Fleming
2003-12-02 4:02 ` Kevin P. Fleming
2003-12-02 4:15 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-12-02 7:51 ` [linux-lvm] " Mike Fedyk
2003-12-02 7:13 ` Kevin P. Fleming
2003-12-02 13:11 ` Kevin P. Fleming
2003-12-02 7:51 ` [linux-lvm] " Jens Axboe
2003-12-02 8:27 ` Jens Axboe
2003-12-02 7:51 ` [linux-lvm] " Nathan Scott
2003-12-02 10:10 ` Nathan Scott
2003-12-02 7:16 ` Kevin P. Fleming [this message]
2003-12-02 13:15 ` Kevin P. Fleming
2003-12-02 13:15 ` Kevin P. Fleming
2003-12-03 3:32 ` Nathan Scott
2003-12-03 7:42 ` [linux-lvm] " Nathan Scott
2003-12-03 11:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-03 17:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-02 18:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-04 1:12 ` Simon Kirby
2003-12-04 8:58 ` [linux-lvm] " Simon Kirby
2003-12-04 1:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-04 8:58 ` [linux-lvm] " Linus Torvalds
2003-12-04 4:31 ` Simon Kirby
2003-12-04 8:58 ` [linux-lvm] " Simon Kirby
2003-12-05 6:55 ` Theodore Ts'o
2003-12-05 7:17 ` [linux-lvm] " Theodore Ts'o
2003-12-04 20:53 ` Herbert Xu
2003-12-04 21:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-01 23:06 ` Reproducable OOPS with MD RAID-5 on 2.6.0-test11 - with XFS Neil Brown
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=3FCC906C.5040907@backtobasicsmgmt.com \
--to=kpfleming@backtobasicsmgmt.com \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-lvm@sistina.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nathans@sgi.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 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.