Re: problems with gmirror on ggate over slow link

2009-11-03 Thread Oliver Fromme
Pete French wrote: [...] Just a wild guess, have you tried to set kern.geom.mirror.timeout to a higher value? Yes, I tried values all the way up to 600, no effect at all - plus the failure comes way before that timeout value (which is in seconds I assume). Have you done any

Re: problems with gmirror on ggate over slow link

2009-11-03 Thread Pete French
Have you done any sockets tuning? In an older posting the following values were recommended: Yes, I need that to get the speed out of it for normal use to a disc on a machine on the same ether - but even so, surely it should block on a slow disc, not just abandon the mirroring ? -pete.

Re: problems with gmirror on ggate over slow link

2009-11-03 Thread Yoshihiro Ota
I think you hit the same bug as I did a while ago. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/132798 You can get a patch at PR and give a try. Make sure you update both server and client; otherwise, it will cause a panic or so. Hiro On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:23:24 + Pete French

problems with gmirror on ggate over slow link

2009-10-23 Thread Pete French
[ originally sent to geom, but am throwing it open to a wider audience as I didn;t get any replies there] I am using 7.2-STABLE from October 7th on all amchines, but this has been going on a while. Very simply I am mirroring together a pair of discs, one local, one remote. The remote disc is

Re: problems with gmirror on ggate over slow link

2009-10-23 Thread Oliver Brandmueller
Hi, On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:56:24AM +0100, Pete French wrote: If the remote diisc is actually on a very close machine - e.g. a server plugged into the same ether net - then all works fine. If I make the remote disc somewhere actually substantially further away on the nbetwork, however,

Re: problems with gmirror on ggate over slow link

2009-10-23 Thread Pete French
Just a wild guess, have you tried to set kern.geom.mirror.timeout to a higher value? Yes, I tried values all the way up to 600, no effect at all - plus the failure comes way before that timeout value (which is in seconds I assume). -pete. ___