From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: James Smart <James.Smart@Emulex.Com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
SCSI development list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problems with the block-layer timeouts
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 18:23:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081103172350.GV31673@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <490F0822.6010406@emulex.com>
On Mon, Nov 03 2008, James Smart wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>While I'm on the subject, there are a few related items that could be
> >>improved. In my tests, I was generating I/O requests simply by doing
> >>
> >> dd if=/dev/sda ...
> >>
> >>I don't know where the timeouts for these requests are determined, but
> >>they were set to 60 seconds. That seems much too long.
> >
> >Fully agreed, as Mike mentioned this actually looks like a dumb udev
> >rule that didn't have any effect until this generic timeout work. For
> >normal IO, something in the 10 second range is a lot more appropriate.
>
> Yes and no. For direct-attach storage with no other initiators, ok.
> But for larger arrays, potentially with multiple initiators - no. I
> can name several arrays that depend on a 30 second timeout, and a few
> that, underload, require 60 seconds. I assume that there's usually
> "best practices" guides for the integrators to ensure the defaults are
> set right.
Sure I agree, it depends on what kind of storage you have. What I mean
is that for a normal disk you want something like 10 seconds.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-03 17:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-01 16:54 Problems with the block-layer timeouts Alan Stern
2008-11-02 20:35 ` Mike Anderson
2008-11-03 8:52 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-03 14:18 ` James Smart
2008-11-03 17:23 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2008-11-03 15:59 ` Alan Stern
2008-11-03 16:39 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-03 17:07 ` Alan Stern
2008-11-03 17:27 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-04 3:01 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-06 0:01 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-11-06 7:23 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-07 4:05 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-11-07 11:24 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-11 6:54 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-11-11 17:11 ` Alan Stern
2008-11-11 19:19 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-12 2:08 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-11-13 10:34 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-17 3:48 ` FUJITA Tomonori
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=20081103172350.GV31673@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=James.Smart@Emulex.Com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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).