> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, David Boyes wrote: > > Since we have ample data from multiple sources that this DOES NOT > operate reliably, the original question still stands. > > Would you mind sharing some of this ample data? Are this all cases where > dasdfmt complains about other users after "udevadm settle" returned?
Florian's original post. Corroborating posts from other users (Mark Post, etc) My data (on average 3 out of 100 tests fail) I'd be happy to send you more examples. Are you looking for something specific? The script recently posted here (by you, I think) can generate as much failure data as you like. To be clear, dasdfmt doesn't complain about other users, it fails because there's no device for it to operate on (yet). Inserting a wait of a few (variable between 1 and 30 seconds, depending on load) seconds reduces, but does not eliminate, the failures. Introducing a 60-90 second wait produces a fairly reliable operation, but still not 100%. Given the need for a reliable test for use in automation and/or the number of devices that commonly need to be processed to create large LVM collections, a minute and a half wait just because we can't reliably depend on chccwdev to be atomic isn't acceptable. I would think it to be a reasonable expectation that 'chccwdev' would not exit until the operation requested was tested to be actually complete and ready to use, or at least provide an option to request that behavior. > When this fails do you find messages from udev in /var/log/messages? Only if udev debugging is turned on (at least in my case -- can't really speak for others). I will send you an example offlist. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
