Attention CentOS Developers,
Here is a back-port of Lars Ellenberg's md raid1/10 patch from 2.6.19+ to 2.6.9. It seems the md raid1 and raid10 drivers were stripping the BIO_RW_SYNC flags on requests which caused a severe performance penalty for DRBD when writing it's meta-data to these volumes.
The patch is attached as well as inlined:
---------- BEGIN ---------- Subject: md: pass down BIO_RW_SYNC in raid{1,10} From: Lars Ellenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
md raidX make_request functions strip off the BIO_RW_SYNC flag, thus introducing additional latency.
Fixing this in raid1 and raid10 seems to be straightforward enough.
For our particular usage case in DRBD, passing this flag improved some initialization time from ~5 minutes to ~5 seconds.
---
raid1.c | 11 ++++++++--- raid10.c | 11 ++++++++--- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff -puN drivers/md/raid1.c~md-pass-down-bio_rw_sync-in-raid1 drivers/md/raid1.c --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c~md-pass-down-bio_rw_sync-in-raid110 2007-02-24 01:51:20.000000000 -0500 +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c 2007-02-24 01:50:38.000000000 -0500 @@ -521,6 +521,7 @@ static int make_request(request_queue_t struct bio *read_bio; int i, disks; mdk_rdev_t *rdev; + const int do_sync = bio_sync(bio);
if (unlikely(bio_barrier(bio))) { bio_endio(bio, bio->bi_size, -EOPNOTSUPP); @@ -582,7 +583,7 @@ static int make_request(request_queue_t read_bio->bi_sector = r1_bio->sector + mirror->rdev->data_offset; read_bio->bi_bdev = mirror->rdev->bdev; read_bio->bi_end_io = raid1_end_read_request; - read_bio->bi_rw = READ; + read_bio->bi_rw = READ | do_sync; read_bio->bi_private = r1_bio;
generic_make_request(read_bio); @@ -625,7 +626,7 @@ static int make_request(request_queue_t mbio->bi_sector = r1_bio->sector + conf->mirrors[i].rdev->data_offset; mbio->bi_bdev = conf->mirrors[i].rdev->bdev; mbio->bi_end_io = raid1_end_write_request; - mbio->bi_rw = WRITE; + mbio->bi_rw = WRITE | do_sync; mbio->bi_private = r1_bio;
atomic_inc(&r1_bio->remaining); @@ -637,6 +638,9 @@ static int make_request(request_queue_t raid_end_bio_io(r1_bio); }
+ if (do_sync) + md_wakeup_thread(mddev->thread); + return 0; }
@@ -960,6 +964,7 @@ static void raid1d(mddev_t *mddev) (unsigned long long)r1_bio->sector); raid_end_bio_io(r1_bio); } else { + const int do_sync = bio_sync(r1_bio->master_bio); r1_bio->bios[r1_bio->read_disk] = NULL; r1_bio->read_disk = disk; bio_put(bio); @@ -974,7 +979,7 @@ static void raid1d(mddev_t *mddev) bio->bi_sector = r1_bio->sector + rdev->data_offset; bio->bi_bdev = rdev->bdev; bio->bi_end_io = raid1_end_read_request; - bio->bi_rw = READ; + bio->bi_rw = READ | do_sync; bio->bi_private = r1_bio; unplug = 1; generic_make_request(bio); --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c~md-pass-down-bio_rw_sync-in-raid110 2007-02-24 01:51:20.000000000 -0500 +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c 2007-02-24 01:50:38.000000000 -0500 @@ -663,6 +663,7 @@ static int make_request(request_queue_t struct bio *read_bio; int i; int chunk_sects = conf->chunk_mask + 1; + const int do_sync = bio_sync(bio);
if (unlikely(bio_barrier(bio))) { bio_endio(bio, bio->bi_size, -EOPNOTSUPP); @@ -747,7 +748,7 @@ static int make_request(request_queue_t mirror->rdev->data_offset; read_bio->bi_bdev = mirror->rdev->bdev; read_bio->bi_end_io = raid10_end_read_request; - read_bio->bi_rw = READ; + read_bio->bi_rw = READ | do_sync; read_bio->bi_private = r10_bio;
generic_make_request(read_bio); @@ -789,7 +790,7 @@ static int make_request(request_queue_t conf->mirrors[d].rdev->data_offset; mbio->bi_bdev = conf->mirrors[d].rdev->bdev; mbio->bi_end_io = raid10_end_write_request; - mbio->bi_rw = WRITE; + mbio->bi_rw = WRITE | do_sync; mbio->bi_private = r10_bio;
atomic_inc(&r10_bio->remaining); @@ -801,6 +802,9 @@ static int make_request(request_queue_t raid_end_bio_io(r10_bio); }
+ if (do_sync) + md_wakeup_thread(mddev->thread); + return 0; }
@@ -1247,6 +1251,7 @@ static void raid10d(mddev_t *mddev) (unsigned long long)r10_bio->sector); raid_end_bio_io(r10_bio); } else { + const int do_sync = bio_sync(r10_bio->master_bio); rdev = conf->mirrors[mirror].rdev; if (printk_ratelimit()) printk(KERN_ERR "raid10: %s: redirecting sector %llu to" @@ -1258,7 +1263,7 @@ static void raid10d(mddev_t *mddev) bio->bi_sector = r10_bio->devs[r10_bio->read_slot].addr + rdev->data_offset; bio->bi_bdev = rdev->bdev; - bio->bi_rw = READ; + bio->bi_rw = READ | do_sync; bio->bi_private = r10_bio; bio->bi_end_io = raid10_end_read_request; unplug = 1; ----------- END -----------
Ross S. W. Walker Information Systems Manager Medallion Financial, Corp. 437 Madison Avenue 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 328-2165 Fax: (212) 328-2125 WWW: http://www.medallion.com http://www.medallion.com
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:24 PM To: centos-devel@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
Attention CentOS Developers,
Here is a back-port of Lars Ellenberg's md raid1/10 patch from 2.6.19+ to 2.6.9. It seems the md raid1 and raid10 drivers were stripping the BIO_RW_SYNC flags on requests which caused a severe performance penalty for DRBD when writing it's meta-data to these volumes.
The patch is attached as well as inlined:
<snip>
Oh, here is the LKML link: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/2/294
I'm a newbie at LKML so I am not sure how to find the commit notification.
Cheers,
Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:24 PM To: centos-devel@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
Attention CentOS Developers,
Here is a back-port of Lars Ellenberg's md raid1/10 patch from 2.6.19+ to 2.6.9. It seems the md raid1 and raid10 drivers were stripping the BIO_RW_SYNC flags on requests which caused a severe performance penalty for DRBD when writing it's meta-data to these volumes.
The patch is attached as well as inlined:
No comments?
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 21:10 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:24 PM To: centos-devel@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
Attention CentOS Developers,
Here is a back-port of Lars Ellenberg's md raid1/10 patch from 2.6.19+ to 2.6.9. It seems the md raid1 and raid10 drivers were stripping the BIO_RW_SYNC flags on requests which caused a severe performance penalty for DRBD when writing it's meta-data to these volumes.
The patch is attached as well as inlined:
No comments?
I just put it in the new CentOSPlus kernel (that I am currently testing).
Should be out later today (if it works).
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:08 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 21:10 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:24 PM To: centos-devel@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
Attention CentOS Developers,
Here is a back-port of Lars Ellenberg's md raid1/10 patch from 2.6.19+ to 2.6.9. It seems the md raid1 and raid10 drivers were stripping the BIO_RW_SYNC flags on requests which caused a severe performance penalty for DRBD when writing it's meta-data to these volumes.
The patch is attached as well as inlined:
No comments?
I just put it in the new CentOSPlus kernel (that I am currently testing).
Should be out later today (if it works).
OK ... the released CentOS-Plus kernel (2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4) has that patch installed on x86_64 and i386 ... and I did install it and test with DRBD. The systems it is on are running OK.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Hughes Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:08 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:08 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 21:10 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:24 PM To: centos-devel@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
Attention CentOS Developers,
Here is a back-port of Lars Ellenberg's md raid1/10
patch from 2.6.19+
to 2.6.9. It seems the md raid1 and raid10 drivers were
stripping the
BIO_RW_SYNC flags on requests which caused a severe performance penalty for DRBD when writing it's meta-data to these volumes.
The patch is attached as well as inlined:
No comments?
I just put it in the new CentOSPlus kernel (that I am currently testing).
Should be out later today (if it works).
OK ... the released CentOS-Plus kernel (2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4) has that patch installed on x86_64 and i386 ... and I did install it and test with DRBD. The systems it is on are running OK.
Excellect, I am currently running the patch on my x86_64 plus kernel here with no problems, and I have the OS booting off of RAID1, I have the meta-data as a LVM on the OS vg and no problems and a significant improvement with my large DRBD volumes.
Lars did review the fixes too and gave them the ok, so it wasn't completely without review.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:32 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Hughes Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:08 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:08 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 21:10 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:24 PM To: centos-devel@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
Attention CentOS Developers,
Here is a back-port of Lars Ellenberg's md raid1/10
patch from 2.6.19+
to 2.6.9. It seems the md raid1 and raid10 drivers were
stripping the
BIO_RW_SYNC flags on requests which caused a severe performance penalty for DRBD when writing it's meta-data to these volumes.
The patch is attached as well as inlined:
No comments?
I just put it in the new CentOSPlus kernel (that I am currently testing).
Should be out later today (if it works).
OK ... the released CentOS-Plus kernel (2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4) has that patch installed on x86_64 and i386 ... and I did install it and test with DRBD. The systems it is on are running OK.
Excellect, I am currently running the patch on my x86_64 plus kernel here with no problems, and I have the OS booting off of RAID1, I have the meta-data as a LVM on the OS vg and no problems and a significant improvement with my large DRBD volumes.
Lars did review the fixes too and gave them the ok, so it wasn't completely without review.
Ok, I just updated to that kernel, kernel-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4, and I do not see the patch in there?
Did it miss the final cut?
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:03 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:32 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of
Johnny Hughes
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:08 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:08 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 21:10 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf
Of Ross S.
W. Walker Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:24 PM To: centos-devel@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
Attention CentOS Developers,
Here is a back-port of Lars Ellenberg's md raid1/10
patch from 2.6.19+
to 2.6.9. It seems the md raid1 and raid10 drivers were
stripping the
BIO_RW_SYNC flags on requests which caused a severe performance penalty for DRBD when writing it's meta-data to these volumes.
The patch is attached as well as inlined:
No comments?
I just put it in the new CentOSPlus kernel (that I am currently testing).
Should be out later today (if it works).
OK ... the released CentOS-Plus kernel (2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4) has that patch installed on x86_64 and i386 ... and I did install
it and test
with DRBD. The systems it is on are running OK.
Excellect, I am currently running the patch on my x86_64 plus kernel here with no problems, and I have the OS booting off of RAID1, I
have the
meta-data as a LVM on the OS vg and no problems and a significant improvement with my large DRBD volumes.
Lars did review the fixes too and gave them the ok, so it wasn't completely without review.
Ok, I just updated to that kernel, kernel-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4, and I do not see the patch in there?
Did it miss the final cut?
My bad I spoke too soon, it is in there as linux-2.6.9-raid-bio-rw-sync.patch.
Sorry,
Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:17 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:03 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:32 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of
Johnny Hughes
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:08 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:08 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 21:10 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org > [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf
Of Ross S.
> W. Walker > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:24 PM > To: centos-devel@centos.org > Subject: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC > patch for DRBD > > > Attention CentOS Developers, > > Here is a back-port of Lars Ellenberg's md raid1/10
patch from 2.6.19+
> to 2.6.9. It seems the md raid1 and raid10 drivers were
stripping the
> BIO_RW_SYNC flags on requests which caused a severe > performance penalty > for DRBD when writing it's meta-data to these volumes. > > The patch is attached as well as inlined:
No comments?
I just put it in the new CentOSPlus kernel (that I am
currently
testing).
Should be out later today (if it works).
OK ... the released CentOS-Plus kernel (2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4) has that patch installed on x86_64 and i386 ... and I did install
it and test
with DRBD. The systems it is on are running OK.
Excellect, I am currently running the patch on my x86_64 plus kernel here with no problems, and I have the OS booting off of RAID1, I
have the
meta-data as a LVM on the OS vg and no problems and a significant improvement with my large DRBD volumes.
Lars did review the fixes too and gave them the ok, so it wasn't completely without review.
Ok, I just updated to that kernel, kernel-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4, and I do not see the patch in there?
Did it miss the final cut?
My bad I spoke too soon, it is in there as linux-2.6.9-raid-bio-rw-sync.patch.
Sorry,
Again, I don't want to be alarmist but... I think there might be a build problem with the latest plus kernel:
[root@mfg-nyc-iscsi2 make]# rpm -qa | grep kernel | sort iscsitarget-kernel-smp-0.4.14-98_2.6.9_42.0.8.plus.c4 kernel-doc-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 kernel-ib-1.0-1 kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.3.plus.c4smp-0.7.21-1.c4 kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4smp-0.7.23-1.c4 kernel-smp-2.6.9-42.0.10.EL kernel-smp-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4 kernel-smp-devel-2.6.9-42.0.10.EL kernel-utils-2.4-13.1.83
Looks like the plus kernel dependencies got mixed up...
[root@mfg-nyc-iscsi2 make]# ls -l /lib/modules/ total 32 drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Feb 28 23:45 2.6.9-42.0.10.ELsmp drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 22 23:13 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Feb 2 17:31 2.6.9-42.0.3.ELsmp drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Feb 24 11:13 2.6.9-42.0.3.plus.c4smp drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Feb 28 23:45 2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4smp drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 22 23:12 2.6.9-42.EL drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 27 09:53 kabi-4.0-0smp
And it's gone and installed the standard kernel.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:24 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:17 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:03 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:32 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of
Johnny Hughes
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:08 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:08 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 21:10 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org > > [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf
Of Ross S.
> > W. Walker > > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:24 PM > > To: centos-devel@centos.org > > Subject: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10
BIO_RW_SYNC
> > patch for DRBD > > > > > > Attention CentOS Developers, > > > > Here is a back-port of Lars Ellenberg's md raid1/10
patch from 2.6.19+
> > to 2.6.9. It seems the md raid1 and raid10 drivers were
stripping the
> > BIO_RW_SYNC flags on requests which caused a severe > > performance penalty > > for DRBD when writing it's meta-data to these volumes. > > > > The patch is attached as well as inlined: > > No comments?
I just put it in the new CentOSPlus kernel (that I am
currently
testing).
Should be out later today (if it works).
OK ... the released CentOS-Plus kernel (2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4) has that patch installed on x86_64 and i386 ... and I did install
it and test
with DRBD. The systems it is on are running OK.
Excellect, I am currently running the patch on my x86_64 plus kernel here with no problems, and I have the OS booting off of RAID1, I
have the
meta-data as a LVM on the OS vg and no problems and a
significant
improvement with my large DRBD volumes.
Lars did review the fixes too and gave them the ok, so
it wasn't
completely without review.
Ok, I just updated to that kernel, kernel-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4, and I do not see the patch in there?
Did it miss the final cut?
My bad I spoke too soon, it is in there as linux-2.6.9-raid-bio-rw-sync.patch.
Sorry,
Again, I don't want to be alarmist but... I think there might be a build problem with the latest plus kernel:
[root@mfg-nyc-iscsi2 make]# rpm -qa | grep kernel | sort iscsitarget-kernel-smp-0.4.14-98_2.6.9_42.0.8.plus.c4 kernel-doc-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 kernel-ib-1.0-1 kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.3.plus.c4smp-0.7.21-1.c4 kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4smp-0.7.23-1.c4 kernel-smp-2.6.9-42.0.10.EL kernel-smp-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4 kernel-smp-devel-2.6.9-42.0.10.EL kernel-utils-2.4-13.1.83
Looks like the plus kernel dependencies got mixed up...
[root@mfg-nyc-iscsi2 make]# ls -l /lib/modules/ total 32 drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Feb 28 23:45 2.6.9-42.0.10.ELsmp drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 22 23:13 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Feb 2 17:31 2.6.9-42.0.3.ELsmp drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Feb 24 11:13 2.6.9-42.0.3.plus.c4smp drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Feb 28 23:45 2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4smp drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 22 23:12 2.6.9-42.EL drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 27 09:53 kabi-4.0-0smp
And it's gone and installed the standard kernel.
Some more bad, drbd kernel modules naming convention off:
[root@mfg-nyc-iscsi2 noarch]# yum list available '*kernel*' Setting up repositories Reading repository metadata in from local files Available Packages kernel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update kernel-devel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update kernel-doc.noarch 2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 centosplus kernel-largesmp.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update kernel-largesmp-devel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.10.EL.x86_ 0.7.23-1.el4.centos extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.10.ELlarge 0.7.23-1.el4.centos extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.10.ELsmp.x 0.7.23-1.el4.centos extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 0.7.23-1.el4.centos extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 0.7.23-1.el4.centos extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 0.7.23-1.el4.centos extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL.x86_6 0.7.21-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.2.ELlarges 0.7.21-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.2.ELsmp.x8 0.7.21-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.3.EL.x86_6 0.7.21-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.3.ELlarges 0.7.21-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.3.ELsmp.x8 0.7.21-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.3.plus.c4. 0.7.21-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.3.plus.c4l 0.7.21-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.3.plus.c4s 0.7.21-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.EL.x86_6 0.7.23-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.ELlarges 0.7.23-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.ELsmp.x8 0.7.23-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4. 0.7.23-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4l 0.7.23-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.EL.x86_64 0.7.21-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.ELlargesmp.x 0.7.21-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.ELsmp.x86_64 0.7.21-1.c4 extras kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.10.EL.x86_6 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.10.ELlarges 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.10.ELsmp.x8 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4. 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4l 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4s 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL.x86_64 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.2.ELlargesm 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.2.ELsmp.x86 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.2.plus.c4.x 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.2.plus.c4la 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.2.plus.c4sm 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.3.EL.x86_64 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.3.ELlargesm 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.3.ELsmp.x86 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.3.plus.c4.x 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.3.plus.c4la 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.3.plus.c4sm 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.8.EL.x86_64 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.8.ELlargesm 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.8.ELsmp.x86 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4.x 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4la 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4sm 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.EL.x86_64 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.ELlargesmp.x8 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.ELsmp.x86_64 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.plus.c4.x86_6 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.plus.c4larges 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-42.plus.c4smp.x8 0.2-1 centosplus kernel-smp.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update kernel-smp-devel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 00:42 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: <snip>
Some more bad, drbd kernel modules naming convention off:
[root@mfg-nyc-iscsi2 noarch]# yum list available '*kernel*' Setting up repositories Reading repository metadata in from local files Available Packages kernel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update kernel-devel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update kernel-doc.noarch 2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 centosplus kernel-largesmp.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update kernel-largesmp-devel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update
<snip>
Inside the plus repository there are drbd kernel modules for the standard kernels and the plus kernels.
Inside the centosplus repos there are also xfs kernel modules for both the standard and plus kernels.
The naming convention concerning %dist for certain files, is that upstream is ever chancing their %dist. In this newest incarnation, they are going to use:
.el4 and .el5
So, centos wants to use .el4.centos and .el5.centos (in the past, we did use .centos or .c4 or .centos4) the %dist should have no real effect on anything ... or maybe I am missing the point of the question.
One thing to remember after major changes is that it takes some finite amount of time for all external mirrors to update ... maybe the one you were using has the standard kernel but the plus kernel (shipped some 12 hours or so later) had not made it there yet.
I am using the i686-plus kernel and drbd modules on 8 drbd clusters without any issues that I can see.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 05:12 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 00:42 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
<snip>
Some more bad, drbd kernel modules naming convention off:
[root@mfg-nyc-iscsi2 noarch]# yum list available '*kernel*' Setting up repositories Reading repository metadata in from local files Available Packages kernel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update kernel-devel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update kernel-doc.noarch 2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 centosplus kernel-largesmp.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update kernel-largesmp-devel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL update
<snip>
oops ... I meant inside the "extras" repository (not the "plus") repository for the next line
Inside the plus repository there are drbd kernel modules for the standard kernels and the plus kernels.
Inside the centosplus repos there are also xfs kernel modules for both the standard and plus kernels.
The naming convention concerning %dist for certain files, is that upstream is ever chancing their %dist. In this newest incarnation, they are going to use:
.el4 and .el5
So, centos wants to use .el4.centos and .el5.centos (in the past, we did use .centos or .c4 or .centos4) the %dist should have no real effect on anything ... or maybe I am missing the point of the question.
One thing to remember after major changes is that it takes some finite amount of time for all external mirrors to update ... maybe the one you were using has the standard kernel but the plus kernel (shipped some 12 hours or so later) had not made it there yet.
I am using the i686-plus kernel and drbd modules on 8 drbd clusters without any issues that I can see.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Hughes Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:15 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 05:12 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 00:42 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
<snip>
Some more bad, drbd kernel modules naming convention off:
[root@mfg-nyc-iscsi2 noarch]# yum list available '*kernel*' Setting up repositories Reading repository metadata in from local files Available Packages kernel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL
update
kernel-devel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL
update
kernel-doc.noarch 2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 centosplus kernel-largesmp.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL
update
kernel-largesmp-devel.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL
update
<snip>
oops ... I meant inside the "extras" repository (not the "plus") repository for the next line
Inside the plus repository there are drbd kernel modules for the standard kernels and the plus kernels.
Inside the centosplus repos there are also xfs kernel
modules for both
the standard and plus kernels.
The naming convention concerning %dist for certain files, is that upstream is ever chancing their %dist. In this newest
incarnation, they
are going to use:
.el4 and .el5
So, centos wants to use .el4.centos and .el5.centos (in
the past, we
did use .centos or .c4 or .centos4) the %dist should have no real effect on anything ... or maybe I am missing the point of
the question.
One thing to remember after major changes is that it takes
some finite
amount of time for all external mirrors to update ... maybe
the one you
were using has the standard kernel but the plus kernel
(shipped some 12
hours or so later) had not made it there yet.
I am using the i686-plus kernel and drbd modules on 8 drbd clusters without any issues that I can see.
I understand that, but the new kernel modules for drbd have 'centos' identifier instead of 'c4'.
kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.10.EL.x86_ 0.7.23-1.el4.centos extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.10.ELlarge 0.7.23-1.el4.centos extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.10.ELsmp.x 0.7.23-1.el4.centos extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 0.7.23-1.el4.centos extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 0.7.23-1.el4.centos extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 0.7.23-1.el4.centos extras
versus
kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.EL.x86_6 0.7.23-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.ELlarges 0.7.23-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.ELsmp.x8 0.7.23-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4. 0.7.23-1.c4 extras kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4l 0.7.23-1.c4 extras
Does that make a difference, will yum recognize it as a upgrade or dependency from the current version?
Also I didn't install the standard kernel I did a yum update from 2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4smp and it went ahead and installed the standard?
Maybe the mirror hadn't received all the updates yet and it decided the standard was the best candidate?
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:22 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Hughes Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:15 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
<snip>
Does that make a difference, will yum recognize it as a upgrade or dependency from the current version?
Also I didn't install the standard kernel I did a yum update from 2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4smp and it went ahead and installed the standard?
Maybe the mirror hadn't received all the updates yet and it decided the standard was the best candidate?
It was the mirror having not sync'd up all the updates.
I did notice something, that might have been true before, but just noticed now. The kernel development headers are marked as upgrades to the previous ones so you can only have one installed at a time.
That makes it hard to compile kernel drivers for previous versions you may have installed if you need to revert back to the previous version.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 14:47 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:22 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Hughes Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:15 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
<snip> > > Does that make a difference, will yum recognize it as a > upgrade or dependency from the current version? > > Also I didn't install the standard kernel I did a yum update > from 2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4smp and it went ahead and installed > the standard? > > Maybe the mirror hadn't received all the updates yet and it > decided the standard was the best candidate?
It was the mirror having not sync'd up all the updates.
I did notice something, that might have been true before, but just noticed now. The kernel development headers are marked as upgrades to the previous ones so you can only have one installed at a time.
That makes it hard to compile kernel drivers for previous versions you may have installed if you need to revert back to the previous version.
That is true, and is how the version of YUM is written that is included in c4 ... you can fix this issue with this line in your yum.config file (all one line):
installonlypkgs=kernel kernel-smp kernel-devel kernel-smp-devel kernel-largesmp kernel-devel-largesmp kernel-hugemem kernel-hugemem-devel
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Hughes Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:39 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 14:47 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:22 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of
Johnny Hughes
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:15 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
<snip> > > Does that make a difference, will yum recognize it as a > upgrade or dependency from the current version? > > Also I didn't install the standard kernel I did a yum update > from 2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4smp and it went ahead and installed > the standard? > > Maybe the mirror hadn't received all the updates yet and it > decided the standard was the best candidate?
It was the mirror having not sync'd up all the updates.
I did notice something, that might have been true before, but just noticed now. The kernel development headers are marked as upgrades to the previous ones so you can only have one installed at a time.
That makes it hard to compile kernel drivers for previous versions you may have installed if you need to revert back to the previous version.
That is true, and is how the version of YUM is written that is included in c4 ... you can fix this issue with this line in your yum.config file (all one line):
installonlypkgs=kernel kernel-smp kernel-devel kernel-smp-devel kernel-largesmp kernel-devel-largesmp kernel-hugemem kernel-hugemem-devel
Thanks, mate, that should help.
So the above option will make sure that the kernel-devel* are included in the installonly algorithm.
Is there an option to select how many previous installonlys are to be allowed? I looked in the man pages, but didn't see the option there. I just want to bump it to 3 from 2.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:49:37AM -0500, Ross S. W. Walker enlightened us:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Hughes Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:39 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 14:47 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:22 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of
Johnny Hughes
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:15 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
<snip> > > Does that make a difference, will yum recognize it as a > upgrade or dependency from the current version? > > Also I didn't install the standard kernel I did a yum update > from 2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4smp and it went ahead and installed > the standard? > > Maybe the mirror hadn't received all the updates yet and it > decided the standard was the best candidate?
It was the mirror having not sync'd up all the updates.
I did notice something, that might have been true before, but just noticed now. The kernel development headers are marked as upgrades to the previous ones so you can only have one installed at a time.
That makes it hard to compile kernel drivers for previous versions you may have installed if you need to revert back to the previous version.
That is true, and is how the version of YUM is written that is included in c4 ... you can fix this issue with this line in your yum.config file (all one line):
installonlypkgs=kernel kernel-smp kernel-devel kernel-smp-devel kernel-largesmp kernel-devel-largesmp kernel-hugemem kernel-hugemem-devel
Thanks, mate, that should help.
So the above option will make sure that the kernel-devel* are included in the installonly algorithm.
Is there an option to select how many previous installonlys are to be allowed? I looked in the man pages, but didn't see the option there. I just want to bump it to 3 from 2.
I believe there is an installonlyn plugin you could probably get.
Matt
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Matt Hyclak Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 10:29 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:49:37AM -0500, Ross S. W. Walker enlightened us:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of
Johnny Hughes
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:39 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 14:47 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross S. W. Walker Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:22 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10 BIO_RW_SYNC patch for DRBD
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of
Johnny Hughes
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:15 AM To: CentOS-Devel Subject: RE: [CentOS-devel] Back-port md raid1/10
BIO_RW_SYNC
patch for DRBD
<snip> > > Does that make a difference, will yum recognize it as a > upgrade or dependency from the current version? > > Also I didn't install the standard kernel I did a yum update > from 2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4smp and it went ahead and installed > the standard? > > Maybe the mirror hadn't received all the updates yet and it > decided the standard was the best candidate?
It was the mirror having not sync'd up all the updates.
I did notice something, that might have been true before, but just noticed now. The kernel development headers are marked as upgrades to the previous ones so you can only have one installed at a time.
That makes it hard to compile kernel drivers for previous versions you may have installed if you need to revert back to the previous version.
That is true, and is how the version of YUM is written that is included in c4 ... you can fix this issue with this line in your yum.config file (all one line):
installonlypkgs=kernel kernel-smp kernel-devel kernel-smp-devel kernel-largesmp kernel-devel-largesmp kernel-hugemem kernel-hugemem-devel
Thanks, mate, that should help.
So the above option will make sure that the kernel-devel*
are included in the installonly algorithm.
Is there an option to select how many previous installonlys
are to be allowed? I looked in the man pages, but didn't see the option there. I just want to bump it to 3 from 2.
I believe there is an installonlyn plugin you could probably get.
Matt
Hmmm, I suppose you mean outside the CentOS repo, as I looked in there and found fastestmirror, protectbase, priorities, but no installonly :-(
I want to try and avoid Frankensteining my setup, especially for such a small item.
Nah, I can live with only 2 kernel versions,.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 00:24 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
<snip>
Again, I don't want to be alarmist but... I think there might be a build problem with the latest plus kernel:
[root@mfg-nyc-iscsi2 make]# rpm -qa | grep kernel | sort iscsitarget-kernel-smp-0.4.14-98_2.6.9_42.0.8.plus.c4 kernel-doc-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 kernel-ib-1.0-1 kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.3.plus.c4smp-0.7.21-1.c4 kernel-module-drbd-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4smp-0.7.23-1.c4 kernel-smp-2.6.9-42.0.10.EL kernel-smp-2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4 kernel-smp-devel-2.6.9-42.0.10.EL kernel-utils-2.4-13.1.83
Looks like the plus kernel dependencies got mixed up...
[root@mfg-nyc-iscsi2 make]# ls -l /lib/modules/ total 32 drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Feb 28 23:45 2.6.9-42.0.10.ELsmp drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 22 23:13 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Feb 2 17:31 2.6.9-42.0.3.ELsmp drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Feb 24 11:13 2.6.9-42.0.3.plus.c4smp drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Feb 28 23:45 2.6.9-42.0.8.plus.c4smp drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 22 23:12 2.6.9-42.EL drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 27 09:53 kabi-4.0-0smp
And it's gone and installed the standard kernel.
-Ross
It just looks like you installed the standard kernel
This shows that the modules go into the normal place when the plus kernel is installed:
[buildsvn@build-i386 newkernel]$ rpm -qlp kernel-smp-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4.x86_64.rpm | grep "/lib/modules" /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/arch /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/arch/x86_64 /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/arch/x86_64/kernel /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/arch/x86_64/kernel/microcode.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/arch/x86_64/oprofile /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/arch/x86_64/oprofile/oprofile.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/aes.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/arc4.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/blowfish.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/cast5.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/cast6.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/crc32c.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/crypto_null.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/deflate.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/des.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/khazad.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/md4.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/md5.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/michael_mic.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/serpent.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/sha256.ko /lib/modules/2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4smp/kernel/crypto/sha512.ko
<snip> ================================================================
Also ... the naming of the plus smp kernel seems fine:
[buildsvn@build-i386 newkernel]$ rpm -qp --provides kernel-smp-2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4.x86_64.rpm | grep smp kernel-smp-x86_64 = 2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 kABI(4.0smp.x86_64) = 0 kernel-smp = 2.6.9-42.0.10.plus.c4 ================================================================
Other than you do not have to 42.0.10.plus.c4smp kernel installed (but instead the standard 42.0.10.ELsmp), I am not sure what your question is.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes