From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m5QDODSE027022 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:24:13 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 6570028795A for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 5Mz2HyP0xXDkdcv4 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <486398B7.50306@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:25:11 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] disable queue flag test in barrier check References: <486307EA.7080007@sandeen.net> <48635284.3060001@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <48635284.3060001@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Timothy Shimmin Cc: xfs-oss , LinuxRaid , NeilBrown , jeremy@sgi.comwe Timothy Shimmin wrote: > Also from memory, I believe Neil checked this removal into the SLES10sp1 tree > and some sgi boxes started having slow downs > (looking at Dave's email below - we were not wanting to tell them > to use nobarrier but needed it to work by default - I forget now). But that's an admin issue. The way it is now, for example a home user of md raid1 (me!) can't run barriers even if they wanted to. Until there is a way to know if a write cache is non-volatile the only safe option is to enable barriers when possible. > 6. >> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:57:24 +1000 >> From: Dave Chinner >> To: Eric Sandeen >> Cc: LinuxRaid , xfs-oss >> Subject: Re: md raid1 passes barriers, but xfs doesn't use them? >> >> Yeah, the problem was that last time this check was removed was >> that a bunch of existing hardware had barriers enabled on them when >> not necessary (e.g. had NVRAM) and they went 5x slower on MD raid1 >> devices. Having to change the root drive config on a wide install >> base was considered much more of support pain than leaving the >> check there. I guess that was more of a distro upgrade issue than >> a mainline problem, but that's the history. Hence I think we >> should probably do whatever everyone else is doing here.... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dave. > > So I guess my question is whether there are cases where we are > going to be in trouble again. > Jeremy, do you see some problems? FWIW, the problem *I* foresee is that some people are going to slow down when using the defaults, yes, because barriers will start working again. But I don't see any other safe way around it. Education would be in order, I suppose. :) -Eric > --Tim > > >