Hi James, James Bottomley wrote: > It doesn't really look like a good solution to the problem you're > describing, particularly if it's just a few isolated arrays. > > The code you propose would certainly catch things like usb devices which > are known for random timeouts; plus a lot of SCSI/ATA devices suffer > isolated timeouts because of I/O load. Global code like this could end > up offlining them. > > Which arrays are these, and what's the taxonomy of the failure ... if > TUR succeeds, perhaps there's another command for the arrays we could > send that would fail or timeout ... or perhaps there's a different way > they should be recovered. Thank you for the comments. I believe that this issue is not specific to a few storages but is a general issue on a HDD storages. Therefore, I think that adding a max timeout count on each device is one of solutions to servers which are sensitive to delay. But I got your point. I will try to find an implementation to not affect other devices. Thanks, --- Takahiro Yasui Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
