linux-ide.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 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 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).