From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
To: Jack Wang <jack.wang.usish@gmail.com>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>,
linux-raid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hare@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] add "failfast" support for raid1/raid10.
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:47:19 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877f7tbi20.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+res+TZD2Lx4CaGPx6SjTc6VKGLUc=qyYBgi15oSYU1bBuHew@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2463 bytes --]
On Sat, Nov 19 2016, Jack Wang wrote:
> 2016-11-18 6:16 GMT+01:00 NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been sitting on these patches for a while because although they
>> solve a real problem, it is a fairly limited use-case, and I don't
>> really like some of the details.
>>
>> So I'm posting them as RFC in the hope that a different perspective
>> might help me like them better, or find a better approach.
>>
>> The core idea is that when you have multiple copies of data
>> (i.e. mirrored drives) it doesn't make sense to wait for a read from
>> a drive that seems to be having problems. It will probably be faster
>> to just cancel that read, and read from the other device.
>> Similarly, in some circumstances, it might be better to fail a drive
>> that is being slow to respond to writes, rather than cause all writes
>> to be very slow.
>>
>> The particular context where this comes up is when mirroring across
>> storage arrays, where the storage arrays can temporarily take an
>> unusually long time to respond to requests (firmware updates have
>> been mentioned). As the array will have redundancy internally, there
>> is little risk to the data. The mirrored pair is really only for
>> disaster recovery, and it is deemed better to lose the last few
>> minutes of updates in the case of a serious disaster, rather than
>> occasionally having latency issues because one array needs to do some
>> maintenance for a few minutes. The particular storage arrays in
>> question are DASD devices which are part of the s390 ecosystem.
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> Thanks for pushing this feature also to mainline.
> We at Profitbricks use raid1 across IB network, one pserver with
> raid1, both legs on 2 remote storages.
> We've noticed if one remote storage crash , and raid1 still keep
> sending IO to the faulty leg, even after 5 minutes,
> md still redirect I/Os, and md refuse to remove active disks, eg:
That make sense. It cannot remove the active disk until all pending IO
completes, either with an error or with success.
If the target has a long timeout, that can delay progress a lot.
>
> I tried to port you patch from SLES[1], with the patchset, it reduce
> the time to ~30 seconds.
>
> I'm happy to see this feature upstream :)
> I will test again this new patchset.
Thanks for your confirmation that this is more generally useful than I
thought, and I'm always happy to hear for more testing :-)
Thanks,
NeilBrown
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 800 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-24 4:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-18 5:16 [PATCH/RFC] add "failfast" support for raid1/raid10 NeilBrown
2016-11-18 5:16 ` [md PATCH 1/6] md/failfast: add failfast flag for md to be used by some personalities NeilBrown
2016-11-18 5:16 ` [md PATCH 2/6] md: Use REQ_FAILFAST_* on metadata writes where appropriate NeilBrown
2016-11-18 5:16 ` [md PATCH 5/6] md/raid10: add failfast handling for reads NeilBrown
2016-11-18 5:16 ` [md PATCH 4/6] md/raid1: add failfast handling for writes NeilBrown
2016-11-18 5:16 ` [md PATCH 3/6] md/raid1: add failfast handling for reads NeilBrown
2016-11-18 5:16 ` [md PATCH 6/6] md/raid10: add failfast handling for writes NeilBrown
2016-11-18 7:09 ` [PATCH/RFC] add "failfast" support for raid1/raid10 Hannes Reinecke
2016-11-18 15:41 ` Jack Wang
2016-11-24 4:47 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2016-11-24 16:06 ` Jack Wang
2016-11-22 2:02 ` Shaohua Li
2016-11-24 23:55 ` [mdadm PATCH] Add failfast support NeilBrown
2016-11-28 13:53 ` Jes Sorensen
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=877f7tbi20.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name \
--to=neilb@suse.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack.wang.usish@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shli@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