Scott Long wrote: > On Apr 29, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Alexander Motin wrote: >> Scott Long wrote: >>> On Apr 29, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Robert Noland wrote: >>>> Scott Long wrote: >>>>> On Apr 29, 2010, at 2:50 AM, Pete French wrote: >>>>>>> Thanks. First step successful - I can steadily reproduce problem on >>>>>>> CURRENT. raidtest with 200 I/O streams over gmirror of two disks on same >>>>>>> channel triggers issue in seconds. Any I/O on channel dying after both >>>>>>> disks report "Queue full" error same time. The rest of system works >>>>>>> fine. If I preliminarily manually adjust queue depth of one disk - >>>>>>> everything works fine. I'll investigate it tomorrow. >>>>>> Glad you have managed to dupliate it - the queue depth thing is >>>>>> inetersting, what changes did you make ? I can try them here and see >>>>>> if they improve the situation on either of my two machines. >>>>>> >>>>> For the record, queue-full is a common, expected condition in CAM. It's >>>>> not something that should be avoided =-) >>>> Should we maybe have a counter in sysctl rather than flooding the console >>>> with these messages then? >>> That's a pretty good idea. I'll make it happen. >> It is already hidden behind bootverbose. Hiding it deeper will make >> unclear why CAM requeues the rest of commands (also reported under >> bootverbose). I've tuned log messages a bit recently and they seem to be >> more consistent and readable now IMHO. > > We used to run FreeBSD at Yahoo with bootverbose turned on in order to help > with debugging. After years of doing this, I finally turned bootverbose off > last year, partially because of the excessive console spam produced by these > queue-full messages. Even when we were writing the ahc/ahd drivers at > Adaptec years ago, I never really liked these messages, and we rarely ran > with bootverbose turned on unless we were actively developing code or > debugging a problem. I like Robert's suggestion because not only does it > make running with bootverbose less painful, it can also provide counters and > also calculate and report rate measurements that might be more useful than > just the printf. > > If you feel strongly against it, I won't push it, but I do like the > suggestion.
No. I just wanted to say that requeue messages massively logged in that case are even less informative for regular user. -- Alexander Motin _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
