Re: XFS and nobarriers on Intel SSD

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello,

Note that I see exactly your errors (in a non-Ceph environment) with both
Samsung 845DC EVO and Intel DC S3610.
Though I need to stress things quite a bit to make it happen.

Also setting nobarrier did alleviate it, but didn't fix it 100%, so I
guess something still issues flushes at some point.

>From where I stand LSI/Avago are full of it.
Not only does this problem NOT happen with any onboard SATA chipset I have
access to, their task abort and reset is what actually impacts things
(several seconds to recover), not whatever insignificant delay caused by
the SSDs.

Christian
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:35:38 +1200 Richard Bade wrote:

> Thanks guys for the pointers to this Intel thread:
> 
> https://communities.intel.com/thread/77801
> 
> It looks promising. I intend to update the firmware on disks in one
> node tonight and will report back after a few days to a week on my
> findings.
> 
> I've also posted to that forum and will update there too.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> On 5 September 2015 at 07:55, Richard Bade <hitrich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > We have a Ceph pool that is entirely made up of Intel S3700/S3710
> > enterprise SSD's.
> >
> > We are seeing some significant I/O delays on the disks causing a “SCSI
> > Task Abort” from the OS. This seems to be triggered by the drive
> > receiving a “Synchronize cache command”.
> >
> > My current thinking is that setting nobarriers in XFS will stop the
> > drive receiving a sync command and therefore stop the I/O delay
> > associated with it.
> >
> > In the XFS FAQ it looks like the recommendation is that if you have a
> > Battery Backed raid controller you should set nobarriers for
> > performance reasons.
> >
> > Our LSI card doesn’t have battery backed cache as it’s configured in
> > HBA mode (IT) rather than Raid (IR). Our Intel s37xx SSD’s do have a
> > capacitor backed cache though.
> >
> > So is it recommended that barriers are turned off as the drive has a
> > safe cache (I am confident that the cache will write out to disk on
> > power failure)?
> >
> > Has anyone else encountered this issue?
> >
> > Any info or suggestions about this would be appreciated.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Richard
> >


-- 
Christian Balzer        Network/Systems Engineer                
chibi@xxxxxxx   	Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications
http://www.gol.com/
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com




[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux