[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: MD/RAID time out writing superblock
On 08/31/2009 04:10 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 08/27/2009 05:22 PM, Andrei Tanas wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> This is about the same problem that I wrote two days ago (md gets an
>>> error
>>> while writing superblock and fails a hard drive).
>>> I've tried to figure out what's really going on, and as far as I can
>>> tell,
>>> the disk doesn't really fail (as confirmed by multiple tests), it
>>> times out
>>> trying to execute ATA_CMD_FLUSH_EXT ("at2.00 cmd ea..." in the log)
>>> command. The reason for this I believe is that md_super_write queues the
>>> write comand with BIO_RW_SYNCIO flag.
>>> As I wrote before, with 32MB cache it is conceivable that it will take
>>> the
>>> drive longer than 30 seconds (defined by SD_TIMEOUT in scsi/sd.h) to
>>> flush
>>> its buffers.
>>> Changing safe_mode_delay to more conservative 2 seconds should definitely
>>> help, but is it really necessary to write the superblock synchronously
>>> when
>>> array changes status from active to active-idle?
>>> [90307.328266] ata2.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6
>>> frozen
>>> [90307.328275] ata2.00: cmd ea/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 tag 0
>>> [90307.328277] res 40/00:01:01:4f:c2/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x4
>>> (timeout)
>>> [90307.328280] ata2.00: status: { DRDY }
>>> [90307.328288] ata2: hard resetting link
>>> [90313.218511] ata2: link is slow to respond, please be patient (ready=0)
>>> [90317.377711] ata2: SRST failed (errno=-16)
>>> [90317.377720] ata2: hard resetting link
>>> [90318.251720] ata2: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)
>>> [90318.338026] ata2.00: configured for UDMA/133
>>> [90318.338062] ata2: EH complete
>>> [90318.370625] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 1953519935
>>> [90318.370632] md: super_written gets error=-5, uptodate=0
>> 30 seconds is a very long time for a drive to respond, but I think that
>> your explanation fits the facts pretty well...
> Even with 32MB cache, 30secs should be more than enough. It's not
> like the drive is gonna do random write on those. It's likely to make
> only very few number of strokes over the platter and it really
> shouldn't take very long. I'm yet to see an actual case where a
> properly functioning drive timed out flush because the flush itself
> took long enough.

I agree - vendors put a lot of pressure on drive manufacturers to finish
up (even during error recovery) in much less than 30 seconds. The push
was always for something closer to 15 seconds iirc.

>> The drive might take a longer time like this when doing error handling
>> (sector remapping, etc), but then I would expect to see your remapped
>> sector count grow.
> Yes, this is a possibility and according to the spec, libata EH should
> be retrying flushes a few times before giving up but I'm not sure
> whether keeping retrying for several minutes is a good idea either.
> Is it?
> Thanks.

I don't think that retrying for minutes is a good idea. I wonder if this
could be caused by power issues or cable issues to the drive?


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-31 14:07    [W:0.098 / U:3.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site