From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q7EKgJ4P001626 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:42:20 -0500 Received: from mail.profihost.ag (mail.profihost.ag [85.158.179.208]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Em1TLX3n7wKkUnrn (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <502AB82D.9090408@profihost.ag> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 22:42:21 +0200 From: Stefan Priebe MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: aborted SCSI commands while discarding/unmapping via mkfs.xfs List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Ronnie Sahlberg , dchinner@redhat.com Hello list, i'm testing KVM with qemu, libiscsi, virtio-scsi-pci and scsi-general on top of a nexenta storage solution. While doing mkfs.xfs on an already used LUN / block device i discovered that the unmapping / discard commands mkfs.xfs sends take a long time which results in a lot of aborted scsi commands. Would it make sense to let mkfs.xfs send these unmapping commands in small portations (f.e. 100MB) or is there another problem in the patch to the block device? Any suggestions or ideas? Thanks! Greets, Stefan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs