Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 15:42:52 +0100 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: Mikolaj Golub <trociny@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Chad M Stewart <cms@balius.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAST - detect failure and restore avoiding an outage? Message-ID: <20130224144251.GV1377@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <20130224100503.GA19308@gmail.com> References: <E3C8C9A2-712E-4925-995A-0471CCD3515B@balius.com> <20130221220042.GA2900@gmail.com> <20130223205103.GN1377@garage.freebsd.pl> <20130224100503.GA19308@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--E0IhBwMLbrMClE+H Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:05:06PM +0200, Mikolaj Golub wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 09:51:03PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: >=20 > > I'm fine with the patchi except for missing breaks in switch added to > > hastd/primary.c. >=20 > Oops. Fixed. Thanks! >=20 > > I'm also wondering... You count all those errors separately just to > > print them as one number. If we do that already let's print them > > separately, eg. > >=20 > > local i/o errors: read(0), write(3), delete(5), flush(9) >=20 > The idea was that hastd provided all available counters, and hastctl > showed only aggregated counter just to save a screen space, but if one > wanted to write its own utility to monitor hastd, which would talk > directly to hastd via socket, she would be able to see all counters > separately. >=20 > But your idea with writing errors in one string looks better, as it > allows to save a screen space and provide more detailed info. I would > prefer a little different output though: >=20 > role: secondary > provname: test > localpath: /dev/md102 > extentsize: 2097152 (2.0MB) > keepdirty: 0 > remoteaddr: kopusha:7771 > replication: memsync > status: complete > dirty: 0 (0B) > statistics: > reads: 13 > writes: 521 > deletes: 0 > flushes: 0 > activemap updates: 0 > local i/o errors: > read: 13, write: 425, delete: 0, flush: 0 >=20 > but don't have a strong opinion and will be ok with yours if you don't > like my version. My only comment would be to keep that in one line so it is easier to grep. And merging those two lines won't exceed 80 chars. > > BTW. Why not to count activemap update errors as write and flush errors? >=20 > I need (internally) separate counters for activemap errors because > they are updated by the different thread and I wouldn't want to > introduce locking for error counter update operations. As hastctl was > supposed to show an aggregated counter I didn't bother much how to > make activemap update errors to count as write and flush errors. I > improved this too in the updated patch: >=20 > http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/hast.stat_error.2.patch The patch looks good. --=20 Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com FreeBSD committer http://www.FreeBSD.org Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://tupytaj.pl --E0IhBwMLbrMClE+H Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlEqJusACgkQForvXbEpPzSDJACg5McfChvcxiz4sQKgXzmIBVC9 aLMAoJKJyJOKrYcjGLICXINwRHSwrP0q =cRNz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --E0IhBwMLbrMClE+H--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130224144251.GV1377>