From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 28 14:19:59 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7458499 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:19:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71CAF804 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:19:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UB4LF-0004DE-8J for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:20:13 +0100 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:20:13 +0100 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:20:13 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Subject: Re: Unexpected SU+J inconsistency AGAIN -- please, don't shift topic to ZFS! Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:19:38 +0100 Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <1796551389.20130228120630@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1238720635.20130228123325@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1158712592.20130228141323@serebryakov.spb.ru> <583012022.20130228143129@serebryakov.spb.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig98A32AB29871B72452708C01" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120812 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: <583012022.20130228143129@serebryakov.spb.ru> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:19:59 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig98A32AB29871B72452708C01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 28/02/2013 11:31, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > WD disks are in software RAID5 with geom_raid5 (from ports, but I'm > active maintainer of it). > Disks are in "Default" configuration: WC and NCQ are enabled. > > I know, that FS guys could blame geom_raid5, as it could delay real > write up to 15 seconds, but it never "lies" about writes (it doesn't > mark BIOs complete till they are really sent to disk) and I could > not reproduce any problems with it on many hours tests on VMs (and I > don't want to experiment a lot on real hardware, as it contains my > real data). >=20 > Maybe, it is subtile interference between raid5 implementation and > SU+J, but in such case I want to understand what does raid5 do > wrong. You guessed correctly, I was going to blame geom_raid5 :) Is this a production setup you have? Can you afford to destroy it and re-create it for the purpose of testing, this time with geom_raid3 (which should be synchronous with respect to writes)? --------------enig98A32AB29871B72452708C01 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlEvZ3oACgkQ/QjVBj3/HSyFKACfV8HYl5TsfYf2Zx48xxQnClEX 4rsAnRd5VSb35co21+ol3qCfTk9TpMbW =KjTe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig98A32AB29871B72452708C01--