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
next prev parent 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).