[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[linux-lvm] re[2]: [Newbie VFS-lock question


Thanks for the help.

Due to the strangeness of my test results, I have also cross-posted this to the LVM and XFS list.

I don't not know if my problem is with xfs or lvm, or some form of interaction.
I am still having lvcreate lockups, even though I am no longer calling xfs_freeze.  Even stranger, calling xfs_freeze -u causes lvcreate to continue, even though I had not called xfs_freeze -f.

I have rebooted the server, and this is repeatable, but it does not occur until the 6th or 7th repeat of my snapshot test script.

It was my understanding that the VFS-lock patch (or lack thereof) would allow the mount step to be reliable, not that it would have any impact on lvcreate being able to run to completion.

More below:
 >>  Gday Greg,

 >>  On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:44, Greg Freemyer wrote:
 >>  >
 >>  > I'm running SuSE 8.0 with there 2.4.18-231 kernel.  This is based on the
 >>  > 2.4.19pre1aa1 kernel with some extra patches.  They also have a test
 >>  kernel
 >>  > based on 2.4.19aa1.

 >>  First is to issue a "lvm version" and please let me know of the results.

The exact response is "bash: lvm: command not found".  :<

Should it have worked?  I do have lots of lv* binaries in /sbin, but not lvm itself.

rpm -qa | grep lvm    gives   lvm-1.0.3-22   if that is what you were looking for.

If it was kernel lvm version # maybe looking at the list of -aa patches will help.

I have never looked for a list of the -aa patches before, but I _assume_ I found them:
The -aa kernels seem to have a bunch of patches as shown at http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.4

For 2.4.19pre1aa1, see http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.4/2.4.19pre1aa1/

The above is kernel I'm currently testing.

For 2.4.19 release, see http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.4/2.4.19rc5aa1/   (note rc5 became the release version.)

I can also test this one if it is likely to help.

The only lvm specific patch I see is lvm-snapshot-check-[12]    http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.4/2.4.19rc5aa1/10_lvm-snapshot-check-2

That does not look like it has anything to do with VFS-locks.

I guess this means that the majority of the LVM kernel changes are part of the official kernel?  But that the VFS locks patch is not?

 >>  > Both have some level of LVM in them, but I don't know which specific
 >>  > version.
 >>  >
 >>  > Would either of these have the VFS-lock patch already included, or do I
 >>  > need to get the SRPM for one of the above, get the VFS-lock patch from
 >>  > somewhere and apply the patch?

 >>  Not sure - we'll have to work it out.  The easiest way is to comment out
 >>  the 
 >>  xfs_freeze above and still run the script - if you are able to mount the 
 >>  resulting snapshot then you most likely have the VFS-lock patch.

I just tried this and I have a surprising result.  (Surprising to me anyway.)

My script has:
        lvcreate --snapshot -L 2500m --name Data_snap /dev/VG/Data
        mount -t xfs -o ro,nouuid /dev/VG/Data_snap /data_snap
           df /data_snap
        umount /data_snap
        lvremove -f /dev/VG/Data_snap

I manually invoked the above 10 times with, no i/o load, heavy read load, and heavy read/write load.  (I used a single instance of dd to copy a 20 Gig file to generate the load.)

I paused only a few second between iterations of this script.

Under no load and with heavy read only load, I had no problems.

With the heavy read/write load, the lvcreate locked up!!! on the 6th or 7th iteration.  Prior to this the lvcreate and mount steps had been taking longer and longer, but never more than 60 seconds,

It displayed 
   lvcreate -- WARNING: the snapshot will be automatically disabled once it gets full
  lvcreate -- INFO: using default snapshot chunk size of 64 KB for "/dev/TruStore-Data/TruStore-Data_snap"
prior to locking up, but nothing else.

lvcreate had been running for 20 minutes before I tried the xfs_freeze -u described below.  The rest of the server seemed to be working fine during this time.  I did NOT try to access any other LV on the same VG, so I don't know if that would have worked or not.

iostat -x -d 10  showed no activity to the drive at all, although the dd command had only copied 700 megs of the 20 Gigs to copy.!!!

The /data FS still has 11 Gigs of free space and I should have lots of unallocated space in the VG.

lvscan is showing my 3 permanent LVs, but then gives a segmentation fault.

I performed a xfs_freeze -u /data, just because this looked so similar to my previous tests.

Much to my surprise, this caused the lvcreate to continue!!!!

I know this sounds like I am still calling xfs_freeze, but it is definitely NOT being called by my script. 

Is there some other way it could be being invoked??????

The above is repeatable, and rebooting the server does NOT cause the problem to go away.

 >>  > If so, where do I get the patch?

 >>  From either the tarballs or from CVS.

 >>  > Also, once I get an appropriate kernel, do I need to do anything to
 >>  invoke
 >>  > this feature prior to creating a snapshot, or is it automatic?

 >>  The VFS-lock is automatic - it deals with the writing out of pending I/O 
 >>  before the snapshot is writen.

I'm going to look for the tarball now, but do you think that the VFS-lock patch will help with this problem.

I'm also going to create a ext3 LV on the same VG and see if that has the same problem.

 >>  -- 
 >>  Adrian Head

 >>  (Public Key available on request.)

 >>  _______________________________________________
 >>  linux-lvm mailing list
 >>  linux-lvm sistina com
 >>  http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
 >>  read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html

Thanks for helping me on this,
Greg Freemyer
Internet Engineer
Deployment and Integration Specialist
Compaq ASE - Tru64 v4, v5
Compaq Master ASE - SAN Architect
The Norcross Group

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]