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]
Date:	Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:18:10 -0500
From:	James Smart <James.Smart@...lex.Com>
To:	Jens Axboe <>
CC:	Alan Stern <>,
	James Bottomley <>,
	SCSI development list <>,
	Kernel development list <>
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists