On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 02:48:45PM +1000, Timothy Shimmin wrote:
I'm taking it that the FUA write will just guarantee that that
particular write has made it to disk on i/o completion
(and no write cache flush is done).
Correct. It only applies to that one write command.
jeremy
-
To
2007/5/25, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
BIO_RW_FAILFAST: means low-level driver shouldn't do much (or no)
error recovery. Mainly used by mutlipath targets to avoid long SCSI
recovery. This should just be propagated when passing requests on.
Is it much or no?
Would it be reasonable to use
2007/5/28, Alasdair G Kergon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 11:30:32AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
1/ A BIO_RW_BARRIER request should never fail with -EOPNOTSUP.
The device-mapper position has always been that we require
a zero-length BIO_RW_BARRIER
(i.e. containing no data to
Hello Neil,
On Monday, 21. May 2007, you wrote:
I am pleased to announce the availability of
mdadm version 2.6.2
Thanks for releasing mdadm 2.6.2. It contains a fix for --test
I was looking for right at the moment :-)
mdadm fails to compile if you enable -O2 using gcc 4.1.1 because of
Hi,
from your post at
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07384.html I
read that autodetecting arrays with a 1.x superblock is currently
impossible. Does it at least work to force the kernel to always assume a
1.x sb? There are some 'broken' distros out there that still
Neil Brown wrote:
md/dm modules could keep count of requests as has been suggested
(though that would be a fairly big change for raid0 as it currently
doesn't know when a request completes - bi_endio goes directly to the
filesystem).
Are you sure? I believe that dm handles bi_endio
David Chinner wrote:
Sounds good to me, but how do we test to see if the underlying
device supports barriers? Do we just assume that they do and
only change behaviour if -o nobarrier is specified in the mount
options?
The idea is that ALL block devices will support barriers; if the
underlying
On Tuesday May 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Neil,
On Monday, 21. May 2007, you wrote:
I am pleased to announce the availability of
mdadm version 2.6.2
Thanks for releasing mdadm 2.6.2. It contains a fix for --test
I was looking for right at the moment :-)
mdadm fails to
On Wed, 30 May 2007, David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 04:03:43PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
David Chinner wrote:
The use of barriers in XFS assumes the commit write to be on stable
storage before it returns. One of the ordering guarantees that we
need is that the transaction
