On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:02:08PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > Damien, > > > Exposing an HDD through multiple-queues each with a high queue depth > > is simply asking for troubles. Commands will end up spending so much > > time sitting in the queues that they will timeout. > > Yep! > > > This can already be observed with the smartpqi SAS HBA which exposes > > single drives as multiqueue block devices with high queue depth. > > Exercising these drives heavily leads to thousands of commands being > > queued and to timeouts. It is fairly easy to trigger this without a > > manual change to the QD. This is on my to-do list of fixes for some > > time now (lacking time to do it). > > Controllers that queue internally are very susceptible to application or > filesystem timeouts when drives are struggling to keep up. > > > NVMe HDDs need to have an interface setup that match their speed, that > > is, something like a SAS interface: *single* queue pair with a max QD > > of 256 or less depending on what the drive can take. Their is no > > TASK_SET_FULL notification on NVMe, so throttling has to come from the > > max QD of the SQ, which the drive will advertise to the host. > > At the very minimum we'll need low queue depths. But I have my doubts > whether we can make this work well enough without some kind of TASK SET > FULL style AER to throttle the I/O. Looks 32 or sort of works fine for HDD, and 128 is good enough for SSD. And this number should drive enough parallelism, meantime timeout can be avoided most of times if not too small timeout value is set. But SCSI still allows to adjust the queue depth via sysfs. Thanks, Ming
