Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
/ 2004-05-13 11:15:53 +0200 \ Matteo Centonza: > On Thu, 13 May 2004, Mark Olliver wrote: > > > >drbd related: > > > > > > drbd seems to work fine, as well as module, and as "monolithic" build. > > > > > > XFS seems to work on top of DRBD within uml, and survives a tiobench. > > > but sometimes, if you copy many files, it get stuck waiting for some xfs > > > internal semaphore to be released, which never happens. > > > > > > this only shows on top of drbd, not using the underlying ubd directly, > > > but seems to be a xfs internal problem, since it even shows when DRBD > > > is "virgin standalone", just passing request to the lower level device, > > > and passing end_io events up to the upper levels. with a recently > > > introduce atomic counter I can *prove* that drbd did the correct endio. > > > > > > only xfs seems to not up its own semaphore properly... > > > as soon as this is reproducable in real systems (where currently xfs on > > > top of DRBD seems to have all sorts of other weird problems, which I > > > doubt are DRBDs fault... only xfs does not expect the restrictions that > > > the DRBD requests queue imposes), this needs to be sorted out with the > > > XFS guys... > > maybe it's related to this: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-xfs&m=108434513705289&w=2 maybe related, maybe yet an other problem. but we already have recognized one of those "arbitrary" limits we impose on the bios we accept to be illegal nowadays (maybe it was illegal always?), and we are fixing it right now. we'll see how far this takes use with xfs. Lars Ellenberg