[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <490F0822.6010406@emulex.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:18:10 -0500
From: James Smart <James.Smart@...lex.Com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
SCSI development list <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problems with the block-layer timeouts
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.
-- james s
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists