Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:14:20 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: scsi@freebsd.org Subject: ASC/ASCQ Review Message-ID: <CANCZdfokEoRtNp0en=9pjLQSQ%2BjtmfwH3OOwz1z09VcwWpE%2Bxg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--0000000000004e42d20600632415 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Greetings, i've been looking closely at failed drives for $WORK lately. I've noticed that a lot of errors that kinda sound like fatal errors have SS_RDEF set on them. What's the process for evaluating whether those error codes are worth retrying. There are several errors that we seem to be seeing (preliminary read of the data) before the drive gives up the ghost altogether. For those cases, I'd like to post more specific lists. Should I do that here? Independent of that, I may want to have a more aggressive 'fail fast' policy than is appropriate for my work load (we have a lot of data that's a copy of a copy of a copy, so if we lose it, we don't care: we'll just delete any files we can't read and get on with life, though I know others will have a more conservative attitude towards data that might be precious and unique). I can set the number of retries lower, I can do some other hacks for disks that tell the disk to fail faster, but I think part of the solution is going to have to be failing for some sense-code/ASC/ASCQ tuples that we don't want to fail in upstream or the general case. I was thinking of identifying those and creating a 'global quirk table' that gets applied after the drive-specific quirk table that would let $WORK override the defaults, while letting others keep the current behavior. IMHO, it would be better to have these separate rather than in the global data for tracking upstream... Is that clear, or should I give concrete examples? Comments? Warner --0000000000004e42d20600632415 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Greetings,<div><br></div><div>i've been looking closel= y at failed drives for $WORK lately. I've noticed that a lot of errors = that kinda sound like fatal errors have SS_RDEF set on them.</div><div><br>= </div><div>What's the process for evaluating=C2=A0whether those error c= odes are worth retrying.=C2=A0There are several errors that we seem to be s= eeing (preliminary read of the data) before the drive gives up the ghost al= together. For those cases, I'd like to post more specific lists. Should= I do that here?</div><div><br></div><div>Independent of that, I may want t= o have a more aggressive=C2=A0'fail fast' policy than is appropriat= e for my work load (we have a lot of data that's a copy of a copy of a = copy, so if we lose it, we don't care: we'll just delete any files = we can't read and get on with life, though I know others will have a mo= re conservative attitude towards data that might be precious and unique). I= can set the number of retries lower, I can do some other hacks for disks t= hat tell the disk to fail faster, but I think part of the solution is going= to have to be failing for some sense-code/ASC/ASCQ tuples that we don'= t want to fail in upstream or the general case. I was thinking of identifyi= ng those and creating a 'global quirk table' that gets applied afte= r the drive-specific quirk table that would let $WORK override the defaults= , while letting others keep the current behavior. IMHO, it would be better = to have these separate rather than in the global data for tracking upstream= ...</div><div><br></div><div>Is that clear, or should I give concrete examp= les?</div><div><br></div><div>Comments?</div><div><br></div><div>Warner</di= v></div> --0000000000004e42d20600632415--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfokEoRtNp0en=9pjLQSQ%2BjtmfwH3OOwz1z09VcwWpE%2Bxg>