On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:02 PM Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > NVMe specs will need an update to have a "NONROT" (non-rotational) bit in > > the identify data for all this to fit well in the current stack. > > Absolutely. > > -- > Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering Hi all- We already anticipated the need for the "spinning rust" bit, so it is already in place (on paper, at least). SAS currently supports QD256, but the general consensus is that most customers don't run anywhere near that deep. Does it help the system for the HD to report a limited (256) max queue depth, or is it really up to the system to decide many commands to queue? Regarding number of SQ pairs, I think HDD would function well with only one. Some thoughts on why we would want >1: -A priority-based SQ servicing algorithm that would permit low-priority commands to be queued in a dedicated SQ. -The host may want an SQ per actuator for multi-actuator devices. There may be others that I haven't thought of, but you get the idea. At any rate, the drive can support as many queue-pairs as it wants to - we can use as few as makes sense. Since NVMe doesn't guarantee command execution order, it seems the zoned block version of an NVME HDD would need to support zone append. Do you agree? -- Tim Walker Product Design Systems Engineering, Seagate Technology (303) 775-3770
