linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] add "failfast" support for raid1/raid10.

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]

Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:06:43 +0100
From:   Jack Wang <jack.wang.usish@...il.com>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
        linux-raid <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hare@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] add "failfast" support for raid1/raid10.

Hi Neil,

2016-11-24 5:47 GMT+01:00 NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>:
> On Sat, Nov 19 2016, Jack Wang wrote:
>
>> 2016-11-18 6:16 GMT+01:00 NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>  I've been sitting on these patches for a while because although they
>>>  solve a real problem, it is a fairly limited use-case, and I don't
>>>  really like some of the details.
>>>
>>>  So I'm posting them as RFC in the hope that a different perspective
>>>  might help me like them better, or find a better approach.
>>>
>>>  The core idea is that when you have multiple copies of data
>>>  (i.e. mirrored drives) it doesn't make sense to wait for a read from
>>>  a drive that seems to be having problems.  It will probably be faster
>>>  to just cancel that read, and read from the other device.
>>>  Similarly, in some circumstances, it might be better to fail a drive
>>>  that is being slow to respond to writes, rather than cause all writes
>>>  to be very slow.
>>>
>>>  The particular context where this comes up is when mirroring across
>>>  storage arrays, where the storage arrays can temporarily take an
>>>  unusually long time to respond to requests (firmware updates have
>>>  been mentioned).  As the array will have redundancy internally, there
>>>  is little risk to the data.  The mirrored pair is really only for
>>>  disaster recovery, and it is deemed better to lose the last few
>>>  minutes of updates in the case of a serious disaster, rather than
>>>  occasionally having latency issues because one array needs to do some
>>>  maintenance for a few minutes.  The particular storage arrays in
>>>  question are DASD devices which are part of the s390 ecosystem.
>>
>> Hi Neil,
>>
>> Thanks for pushing this feature also to mainline.
>> We at Profitbricks use raid1 across IB network, one pserver with
>> raid1, both legs on 2 remote storages.
>> We've noticed if one remote storage crash , and raid1 still keep
>> sending IO to the faulty leg, even after 5 minutes,
>> md still redirect I/Os, and md refuse to remove active disks, eg:
>
> That make sense.  It cannot remove the active disk until all pending IO
> completes, either with an error or with success.
>
> If the target has a long timeout, that can delay progress a lot.
>
>>
>> I tried to port you patch from SLES[1], with the patchset, it reduce
>> the time to ~30 seconds.
>>
>> I'm happy to see this feature upstream :)
>> I will test again this new patchset.
>
> Thanks for your confirmation that this is more generally useful than I
> thought, and I'm always happy to hear for more testing :-)
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown

Just want to update test result, so far it's working fine, no regression :)
Will report if anything breaks.

Thanks
Jack