From: aristizb@ualberta.ca
To: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux md and iscsi problems
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:53:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080204095335.n26tlbaav4s8sk08@webmail.ualberta.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18340.58431.163856.338970@notabene.brown>
Good morning.
Quoting Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>:
> On Friday February 1, aristizb@ualberta.ca wrote:
>>
>>
>> Summarizing, I have two questions about the behavior of Linux md with
>> slow devices:
>>
>> 1. Is it possible to modify some kind of time-out parameter on the
>> mdadm tool so the slow device wouldn't be marked as faulty because of
>> its slow performance.
>
> No. md doesn't do timeouts at all. The underlying device does.
> So if you are getting time out errors from the iscsi initiator, then
> you need to change the timeout value used by the iscsi initiator. md
> has no part to play in this. It just sends a request and eventually
> gets either 'success' or 'fail'.
>
1. What seems strange to me is that under the same conditions running
the test only with iscsi, the initiator never fails. I had some
problems with iscsi on the past and they were solved changing the
time-out parameters on the initiator side, but now that I added the
md layer I am getting errors with the slow device.
>>
>> 2. Is it possible to control the "buffer" size of the RAID?, in other
>> words, can I control the amount of data I can write to the local disc
>> before I receive an acknowledgment from the slow device when I am
>> using the write-behind option.
>
> No. md/raid1 simply calls 'kmalloc' to get space to buffer each write
> as the write arrives. If the allocation succeeds, it is used to
> perform the write lazily. If the allocation fails, the write is
> performs synchronously.
>
> What did you hope to achieve by such tuning? It can probably be
> added if it is generally useful.
>
> NeilBrown
>
>
2. The idea here is to implement remote replication, by having a
RAID-1 I can create a mirror of my local disk and use it for backup or
for any other purposes on a centralized location.
Changing the buffer will allow me to improve performance on the
writing, so a user will always experience local writing speed, while I
am still sending data across the network to the mirror device.
Thanks a lot for your time.
Juan Aristizabal.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-04 16:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-01 18:59 Linux md and iscsi problems aristizb
2008-02-02 21:44 ` Neil Brown
2008-02-04 16:53 ` aristizb [this message]
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=20080204095335.n26tlbaav4s8sk08@webmail.ualberta.ca \
--to=aristizb@ualberta.ca \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
/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