linux-kernel - Re: sysfs makes scaling suck Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1179423924.3785.30.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2007 13:45:24 -0400
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>
To:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Cc:	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, kernel-packagers@...r.kernel.org,
	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Subject: Re: sysfs makes scaling suck Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning

On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 13:32 -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:57:52AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > 
> > echo 1 > /sys/module/scsi_mod/.../wait_for_async_scans
> > 
> > somewhere in some script. In fact, the latter method seems simpler,
> > saner, better (in every which way)!
> 
> Please don't force sysfs on people.  Just watch how it keels over and dies 
> when you end up with lots of disks/network interfaces on reasonably sized 
> boxes.  16 statically allocated files per network interface starts being 
> a problem once you've got a few thousand interfaces.  Anything that forces 
> me to use sysfs is not gonna fly.

Well, for that case, you just never enable async scanning

But also, the sysfs with over 4,000 (and higher) devices was
specifically checked by OSDL (actually as part of the CGL testing) some
of the Manoj changes (for unpinning entries etc) were needed to get it
to function, but as of now, I believe an enterprise scaling test works
reasonably well for it ... there certainly wasn't any evidence of it
dying horribly in the tests.

James


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/