[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081103172350.GV31673@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 18:23:50 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: James Smart <James.Smart@...lex.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
On Mon, Nov 03 2008, James Smart wrote:
> 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.
Sure I agree, it depends on what kind of storage you have. What I mean
is that for a normal disk you want something like 10 seconds.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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