All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dewangga Bachrul Alam <dewanggaba@xtremenitro.org>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Change sector size on existing partition
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:26:04 +0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54C2761C.4050208@xtremenitro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54C26D8F.1040402@sandeen.net>

Hi,

Thanks for your kind, but I don't know how to reproduce the errors, it
happens randomly. I try to reproduce on VM but nothing helps, I can't
create raid array on VM. :)

But, I'm quite sure there is miscalculation or something else that make
4k sector size on RAID-10 array.

And anyway, I found something interesting, it happens on my old
development server too, but I didn't use the application like on new
box. So it's no problem.

$ xfs_info /database/mysql
meta-data=/dev/mapper/vg_agnirudra-lv_database isize=256    agcount=32,
agsize=7629824 blks
         =                       sectsz=4096  attr=2, projid32bit=0
data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=244154368, imaxpct=25
         =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks
naming   =version 2              bsize=4096   ascii-ci=0
log      =internal               bsize=4096   blocks=119216, version=2
         =                       sectsz=4096  sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1
realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0

It's software raid-1 array. Here is the partition table.

NAME                                  MAJ:MIN RM   SIZE RO TYPE  MOUNTPOINT
sdc                                     8:32   0 931.5G  0 disk
└─sdc1                                  8:33   0 931.5G  0 part
  └─md0                                 9:0    0 931.4G  0 raid1
    └─vg_agnirudra-lv_database (dm-2) 253:2    0 931.4G  0 lvm   /database
sda                                     8:0    0 279.5G  0 disk
├─sda1                                  8:1    0   500M  0 part  /boot
└─sda2                                  8:2    0   279G  0 part
  ├─vg_os-lv_root (dm-0)              253:0    0   271G  0 lvm   /
  └─vg_os-lv_swap (dm-1)              253:1    0     8G  0 lvm   [SWAP]
sdb                                     8:16   0 931.5G  0 disk
└─sdb1                                  8:17   0 931.5G  0 part
  └─md0                                 9:0    0 931.4G  0 raid1
    └─vg_agnirudra-lv_database (dm-2) 253:2    0 931.4G  0 lvm   /database
sr0                                    11:0    1  1024M  0 rom

$ uname -a
Linux agnirudra.xxx 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Sep 9 21:36:05
UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

$ cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS release 6.5 (Final)

$ yum history info 1 | grep xfsprogs | fpaste
Uploading (0.2KiB)...
http://ur1.ca/jiikv -> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/173636/14220298

It's came from CentOS 6.4, xfsprogs default stock 6.4, as you mentioned
before.

On 01/23/2015 10:49 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 1/23/15 9:40 AM, Dewangga Bachrul Alam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm sorry, didnt fill any information here, but here is my nodes details.
>>
>> $ uname -a
>> Linux catalyst-db01.jkt3d.xxx 2.6.32-504.3.3.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Dec
>> 17 01:55:02 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>>
>> $ cat /etc/redhat-release
>> CentOS release 6.6 (Final)
>>
>> The xfs and partition table build from anaconda from first install,
>> instalation came from CentOS 6.6. But it's weird, only this node has 4k
>> sector size, the others is 512.
>>
>> catalyst-db01$ yum history info 1 | grep xfsprogs | fpaste
>> Uploading (0.2KiB)...
>> http://ur1.ca/jihyu -> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/173606/27434142
> 
> so xfsprogs v3.1.1
> 
> This went into v3.1.8:
> 
> commit 287d168b550857ce40e04b5f618d7eb91b87022f
> Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
> Date:   Thu Mar 1 22:46:35 2012 -0600
> 
>     mkfs.xfs: properly handle physical sector size
>     
>     This splits the fs_topology structure "sectorsize" into
>     logical & physical, and gets both via blkid_get_topology().
>     
>     This primarily allows us to default to using the physical
>     sectorsize for mkfs's "sector size" value, the fundamental
>     size of any IOs the filesystem will perform.
>     
>     We reduce mkfs.xfs's "sector size" to logical if
>     a block size < physical sector size is specified.
>     This is suboptimal, but permissable.
>     
>     For block size < sector size, differentiate the error
>     message based on whether the sector size was manually
>     specified, or deduced.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
>     Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> 
> but was backported to the RHEL6 xfsprogs:
> 
> * Tue Sep 25 2012 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> 3.1.1-8
> - mkfs.xfs: better handle misaligned 4k devices (#836433)
> - mkfs.xfs: default to physical sectorsize (#836433)
> 
> So, not *exactly* a bug, because the assumption that 512-byte
> DIO will always work is not a good one, but the commit I mentioned
> in my first email will let 512-byte DIOs work again.
> 
> I'd tell you to file a bug with your RHEL support people, but
> Centos ... ;)  We probably should get that kernel commit into RHEL6
> if possible.  I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen other reports.
> 
> But, if you ever wind up with hard 4k/4k drives, your database
> still won't work.  On any filesystem.  :)
> 
> If you don't mind following up with this informtation in the other
> forum, that might help others.
> 
> -Eric
> 

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-23 16:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-23 13:04 Change sector size on existing partition Dewangga Bachrul Alam
2015-01-23 13:39 ` Brian Foster
2015-01-23 13:46   ` Dewangga Bachrul Alam
2015-01-23 14:06     ` Brian Foster
2015-01-23 14:35       ` Dewangga Bachrul Alam
2015-01-23 15:29 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-01-23 15:40   ` Dewangga Bachrul Alam
2015-01-23 15:49     ` Eric Sandeen
2015-01-23 16:26       ` Dewangga Bachrul Alam [this message]
2015-01-23 16:44         ` Eric Sandeen

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=54C2761C.4050208@xtremenitro.org \
    --to=dewanggaba@xtremenitro.org \
    --cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
    --cc=xfs@oss.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.