|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > drbd-user archives|
On 06/11/12 23:00, Matthias Hensler wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:31:16PM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
>> On 06/11/12 22:14, Matthias Hensler wrote:
>>> Indeed, the problem lies within the kernel version used to build the
>>> drbd.ko module. I double checked by using all userland tools from 8.3.13
>>> elrepo build together with my drbd.ko build on 2.6.32-71 (but run from
>>> Just to be clear: all tests were made with kernel 2.6.32-220, and the
>>> userland version does not matter.
>>> drbd.ko | 8.3.11 | 8.3.13
>>> build on 2.6.32-71 | good | good
>>> build on 2.6.32-220 | bad | bad
>>> So, how to debug this further? I would suspect looking at the symbols of
>>> both modules might give a clue?
>> As a knee-jerk response based on a hunch -- you've been warned :) --,
>> this could be related to the BIO_RW_BARRIER vs. FLUSH/FUA dance that the
>> RHEL 6 kernel has been doing between the initial RHEL 6 release, and
>> more recent updates (when they've been backporting the "let's kill
>> barriers" upstream changes from post-2.6.32).
>> Try configuring your disk section with no-disk-barrier, no-disk-flushes
>> and no-md-flushes (in both configurations) and see if your kernel module
>> change still makes a difference.
> Just did that:
> Using the drbd.ko build on 2.6.32-71 shows minor increase in
> performance (108,5 MByte/s, so some 5% more or so).
Yeah, that's what you tend to top out at, throughput wise, over a GbE
> Using the drbd.ko build on 2.6.32-220.17.1 now finally brings the
> expected performance (same as with the 2.6.32-71 built).
>> Of course, in production you should only use those options if you have
>> no volatile caches involved in the I/O path.
> Yes, that is clear. I did not plan to disable barriers, as the
> bottleneck in my setup should be clearly the network.
Slightly misguided conclusions, or incorrect assumptions, or both. :)
What you should be doing is get a good cache with a BBU or
capacitor-backed flash, and then disable barriers and flushes. That's
all in the User's Guide.
>> Not sure if this is useful, but I sure hope it is. :)
> Well, what does that mean: are the modules build on 2.6.32-71 broken in
> a way that they do not use barriers (and therefore dangerous to use), or
> is everything fine with the 2.6.32-71 builds and just building on a
> newer kernel produces broken modules?
For whether the newly produced modules are "broken", and if so in what
way and how to prevent any such breakage, I'll defer to the devs. As for
the alleged performance regression that was also reported in this thread
I'm curious to find out what this means for upstream kernel users, as
(IIUC) the current 8.3.13 codebase just resynced with upstream for the
3.5 kernel merge window.
I'm fairly confident Lars will weigh in on this, so let's see what he says.
-- Need help with High Availability? http://www.hastexo.com/now
drbd-user mailing list