From: Simon Kirby <sim@hostway.ca>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Unreliable disk detection order in 5.x
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:01:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211111010106.GA27431@hostway.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ce4f925f-cbf9-9bbb-4bde-dd57059e3c84@acm.org>
On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 11:51:45AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/6/21 19:24, Simon Kirby wrote:
> > This occurs regardless of the CONFIG_SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC setting, and
> > also with scsi_mod.scan=sync on vendor kernels. All of these disks
> > are coming from the same driver and card.
> >
> > I understand that using UUIDs, by-id, etc., is an option to work
> > around this, but then we would have to push IDs for disks in every
> > server to our configuration management. It does not seem that this
> > change is really intentional.
>
> SCSI disk detection is asynchronous on purpose since a long time. The most
> recent commit I know of that changed SCSI disk scanning
> behavior is commit f049cf1a7b67 ("scsi: sd: Rely on the driver core for
> asynchronous probing").
>
> Please use one of the /dev/disk/by-*/* identifiers as Damien requested.
Hi Bart,
So, we're using DRBD on top of these, which means by-uuid is not
available; we can use only by-id and by-path. by-id is dependent on disk
models and serial numbers, and by-path is dependent on PCI bus details.
Both are going to be a good deal more work to maintain, since they're
both not just a simple enumeration.
I did try 5.14.17 with f049cf1a7b67 (and a065c0faacb1) reverted, and it
does indeed restore the behaviour where sd* order appears to be reliable.
Scan time (time until systemd starts) is within 4ms across 3 boots with
and without the revert, but this is just our particular case.
I don't fully understand the scan process here, but I can understand the
challenges in trying to parallelize it and still end up with a consistent
enumerated list.
I guess you would agree that removing sd* entirely would not be an option
because they've existed forever historically, but at the same time, the
only time they really "work" now are as symlink targets for by-*, and in
the case where only one disk exists at boot time. Do I have this right?
Simon-
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-11 1:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-05 6:46 Unreliable disk detection order in 5.x Simon Kirby
2021-11-05 7:45 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-11-07 2:24 ` Simon Kirby
2021-11-07 19:51 ` Bart Van Assche
2021-11-11 1:01 ` Simon Kirby [this message]
2021-11-11 1:16 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-11-11 6:57 ` Hannes Reinecke
2021-11-12 0:11 ` Phillip Susi
2021-11-12 6:38 ` Hannes Reinecke
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=20211111010106.GA27431@hostway.ca \
--to=sim@hostway.ca \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
--cc=linux-block@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox