All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ric Wheeler <ric@emc.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_lib.c: continue after MEDIUM_ERROR
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 11:16:19 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <45C363D3.20809@emc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1170428007.3380.4.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>



James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 14:42 +0000, Alan wrote:
>   
>>> The interesting point of this question is about the typically pattern of 
>>> IO errors. On a read, it is safe to assume that you will have issues 
>>> with some bounded numbers of adjacent sectors.
>>>       
>> Which in theory you can get by asking the drive for the real sector size
>> from the ATA7 info. (We ought to dig this out more as its relevant for
>> partition layout too).
>>     

Actually, my point is that damage typically impacts a cluster of disk 
sectors that are adjacent. Think of a drive that has junk on the platter 
or a some such thing - the contamination is likely to be localized.
>>     
>>> I really like the idea of being able to set this kind of policy on a per 
>>> drive instance since what you want here will change depending on what 
>>> your system requirements are, what the system is trying to do (i.e., 
>>> when trying to recover a failing but not dead yet disk, IO errors should 
>>> be as quick as possible and we should choose an IO scheduler that does 
>>> not combine IO's).
>>>       
>> That seems to be arguing for a bounded "live" time including retry run
>> time for a command. That's also more intuitive for real time work and for
>> end user setup. "Either work or fail within n seconds"
>>     
>
> Actually, then I think perhaps we use the allowed retries for this ...
>   
I really am not a big retry fan for most modern drives - the drive will 
try really, really hard to complete an IO for us and multiple retries 
can just slow down the higher level application from recovering.
> So you would fail a single sector and count it against the retries.
> When you've done this allowed retries times, you fail the rest of the
> request.
>
> James
>
>   
I think that we need to play with some of these possible solutions on 
some  real-world bad drives and see how they react. 

We should definitely talk more about this at the workshop ;-)

ric


  reply	other threads:[~2007-02-02 16:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-01-31  0:47 [PATCH] scsi_lib.c: continue after MEDIUM_ERROR Mark Lord
2007-01-31  1:12 ` [PATCH] RESEND " Mark Lord
2007-01-31  1:16 ` [PATCH] " James Bottomley
2007-01-31  1:36   ` Mark Lord
     [not found]   ` <311601c90701301725n53d25a74g652b7ca3bfc64c56@mail.gmail.com>
2007-01-31  1:41     ` Mark Lord
2007-01-31  3:20       ` Ric Wheeler
2007-01-31  4:21         ` James Bottomley
2007-01-31 15:13           ` Mark Lord
2007-01-31 15:22             ` Mark Lord
2007-01-31 15:24             ` James Bottomley
2007-01-31  5:09         ` Douglas Gilbert
2007-01-31 15:08         ` Mark Lord
2007-01-31 15:23           ` Alan
2007-01-31 16:35             ` Ric Wheeler
2007-01-31 17:57             ` Mark Lord
2007-01-31 18:13               ` James Bottomley
2007-01-31 18:37                 ` Mark Lord
2007-01-31  9:30       ` Jeff Garzik
2007-01-31 14:36         ` Ric Wheeler
2007-01-31 15:28           ` Douglas Gilbert
2007-01-31 15:38             ` Mark Lord
2007-02-01 20:02   ` Mark Lord
2007-02-01 21:55     ` James Bottomley
2007-02-02  2:48       ` Mark Lord
2007-02-02 12:20       ` Ric Wheeler
2007-02-02 14:42         ` Alan
2007-02-02 14:53           ` James Bottomley
2007-02-02 16:16             ` Ric Wheeler [this message]
2007-02-02 20:16           ` Douglas Gilbert
2007-02-02 14:50         ` Alan
2007-02-02 16:06           ` Mark Lord
2007-02-02 19:49             ` Matt Mackall
2007-02-02 22:58               ` Mark Lord
2007-02-02 23:07                 ` Matt Mackall

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=45C363D3.20809@emc.com \
    --to=ric@emc.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=liml@rtr.ca \
    --cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@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.