From: James J <james.j@shiftmail.org>
To: Dark Penguin <darkpenguin@yandex.ru>,
linux-raid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: md failing mechanism
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 00:40:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56A2BDF7.7020101@shiftmail.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56A2A2C3.9000801@yandex.ru>
On 22/01/2016 22:44, Dark Penguin wrote:
>
> As I understand, one way around this problem is to change the kernel
> timeout to exceed the drive timeout by changing
> /sys/block/sd?/device/timeout to something larger than the default 30,
> but I'd have to do that after every reboot, is all that correct?
>
No, this part needs further investigation and comments from the gurus.
With a SCSI timeout 30 secs, which is the setting you had at the time of
the incident AFAIU, what should have happened was that the drive should
have been kicked out at the 30th second, this is BEFORE it had a chance
to return a read failure because your desktop drive takes more than
30secs to return a read failure. This was what you indeed expected but
it is not what has happened.
The recommentation of raising the timeout to 120+ is for the opposite
purpose of what you want. It is for the case the sysadmin accepts to
wait a long time because he wants to prevent the kicking of the drive at
the first read-error (normally drives are kicked for a write error).
This might be wanted in order to a) defer the replacement of the drive,
either to perform the replacement at a more opportune time and/or in a
better manner such as a no-degrade replace operation, or b) because he
does not want to replace the drive at all: maybe he believes that the
error might be spurious and will not happen again and the drive is still
of acceptable fitness for the purpose, e.g. in a low-cost file server.
So what happened is still wrong AFAIK, in the sense of a kernel bug.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-22 23:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-22 17:59 md failing mechanism Dark Penguin
2016-01-22 19:29 ` Phil Turmel
2016-01-22 20:00 ` Wols Lists
2016-01-22 21:44 ` Dark Penguin
2016-01-22 22:18 ` Phil Turmel
2016-01-22 22:50 ` Dark Penguin
2016-01-22 23:23 ` Edward Kuns
2016-01-22 23:34 ` Wols Lists
2016-01-23 0:09 ` Dark Penguin
2016-01-22 22:37 ` Edward Kuns
2016-01-22 23:07 ` Dark Penguin
2016-01-22 23:39 ` Wols Lists
2016-01-23 0:09 ` Dark Penguin
2016-01-23 0:34 ` Phil Turmel
2016-01-23 10:33 ` Dark Penguin
2016-01-23 15:12 ` Phil Turmel
2016-01-22 23:40 ` James J [this message]
2016-01-23 0:44 ` Phil Turmel
2016-01-23 14:09 ` Wols Lists
2016-01-23 19:02 ` James J
2016-01-24 22:13 ` Adam Goryachev
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=56A2BDF7.7020101@shiftmail.org \
--to=james.j@shiftmail.org \
--cc=darkpenguin@yandex.ru \
--cc=linux-raid@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).