From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Martin Boutin <martboutin@gmail.com>,
"Kernel.org-Linux-RAID" <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
"Kernel.org-Linux-EXT4" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Filesystem writes on RAID5 too slow
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 00:41:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131123084106.GA19088@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131122224038.GH6502@dastard>
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 09:40:38AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > geometry, and we already have it wired to to large sector size
> > testing in xfstests.
>
> We don't need to screw around with the sector size - that is
> irrelevant to the problem, and we have an allocation alignment
> test that is supposed to catch these issues: generic/223.
It didn't imply we need large sector sizes, but the same mechanism
to expodse a large sector size can also be used to present large
stripe units/width.
> As I said, I have seen occasional failures of that test (once a
> month, on average) as a result of this bug. It was simply not often
> enough - running in a hard loop didn't increase the frequency of
> failures - to be able debug it or to reach my "there's a regression
> I need to look at" threshold. Perhaps we need to revisit that test
> and see if we can make it more likely to trigger failures...
Seems like 233 should have cought it regularly with the explicit
alignment options on mkfs time. Maybe we also need a test mirroring
the plain dd more closely?
I've not seen 233 fail for a long time..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-23 8:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-18 16:02 Filesystem writes on RAID5 too slow Martin Boutin
2013-11-18 18:28 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-11-19 0:57 ` Dave Chinner
2013-11-21 9:11 ` Martin Boutin
2013-11-21 9:26 ` Dave Chinner
2013-11-21 9:50 ` Martin Boutin
2013-11-21 13:31 ` Martin Boutin
2013-11-21 16:35 ` Martin Boutin
2013-11-21 23:41 ` Dave Chinner
2013-11-22 9:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-22 22:40 ` Dave Chinner
2013-11-23 8:41 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2013-11-24 23:21 ` Dave Chinner
2013-11-22 13:33 ` Martin Boutin
2013-12-10 19:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-11 0:27 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-11 19:09 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-18 18:41 ` Roman Mamedov
2013-11-18 19:25 ` Roman Mamedov
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=20131123084106.GA19088@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martboutin@gmail.com \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).