Linux RAID subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.


      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