[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090918170742.GJ2141@arachsys.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:07:42 +0100
From: Chris Webb <chris@...chsys.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Andrei Tanas <andrei@...as.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>,
Mark Lord <mlord@...ox.com>
Subject: Re: MD/RAID time out writing superblock
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:
> Chris Webb wrote:
>
> > Would such very slow (but ultimately successful) flushes be
> > consistent with the theory of power supply issues affecting the
> > drives? It feels like the 30s timeouts on flush could be just a more
> > severe version of the 15s very slow flushes.
>
> Probably not. Power problems usually don't resolve themselves with
> longer timeout. If the drive genuinely takes longer than 30s to
> flush, it would be very interesting tho. That's something people have
> been worrying about but hasn't materialized yet. The timeout is
> controlled by SD_TIMEOUT in drivers/scsi/sd.h. You might want to bump
> it up to, say, 60s and see whether anything changes.
I'll add that to the list of things to check out on the test machine with a
more disposable installation on it! The 15s flushes we're seeing on
superblock barrier writes do already feel dangerously close to the 30s
hardcoded timeout to me: it's only a factor of two.
Cheers,
Chris.
--
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