Hi Dave, Dave Watkins wrote: > Hi Rafiu > > Yes, I've just reproduced in on an Intel based system with a completely > default 2.2 x86_64 with a conary updateall run. No bonding or additional > drivers loaded. >
OK please bounce to IET devel list. Give all details of error and test process. Thx, R. > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rafiu Fakunle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 1 December 2006 1:33 p.m. > To: Dave Watkins > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OF-users] iSCSI bug? > > Dave Watkins wrote: >> This _may_ have been a wild goose chase from the beginning. >> > > Are you able to reproduce on a 64-bit system with different hardware? > > > R. > >> >> The OF box I was using had a temporary 3ware raid card (PCI-X) in it > until the new 9650SE (PCI-E) cards became available. This has now > happened and when this card arrived it seems there are PCI-E issues on > the Tyan board we are using. When both PCI-E slots on the board are > populated much worse things happen, such as lockups at POST or in the > BIOS depending on which slots the cards are physically in. I'm beginning > to suspect we were seeing this same issue when stressing the PCI-E NIC > but not to the same degree since at the time PCI-E traffic was much > less. Of note is that said lockups don't occur unless both cards are > installed, the new 3ware or the Intel NIC by themsleves operate fine > with the exception of seeing the error that started this thread so I > don't think it's the new 3ware card causing the problem >> >> The only hole in the above theory is that even when I was using the > on-board NIC's to test we were still seeing this and they are both > connected to a PCI-X bus. >> >> In any case Tyan are aware of the issue now and I'm hoping to see a > BIOS release to solve it in the near future >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Rafiu Fakunle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tue 11/28/2006 10:49 AM >> To: Dave Watkins >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [OF-users] iSCSI bug? >> >> >> >> Dave Watkins wrote: >> >>> When you say "local box" do you mean the openfiler box >>> >> Yes please. >> >>> or the windows >>> box? I have run local tests on the windows box without isse but > haven't >>> tried the openfiler box. I will try disabling jumbo frames, I have > tried >>> without NAPI and flow control with no success >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rafiu Fakunle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Tuesday, 28 November 2006 10:27 a.m. >>> To: Dave Watkins >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [OF-users] iSCSI bug? >>> >>> Dave Watkins wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I'll start with a better description and get onto working with the > new >>>> packages >>>> >>>> I'm running iometer on the Windows Server 2003 x64 box against an >>>> >>>> >>> iSCSI >>> >>> >>>> volume using the MS iSCSI initiator (2.02). >>>> >>>> Using iometer and selecting any of the 0% read, 0% random access >>>> specifications will return expected performance numbers, but > stopping >>>> that test, and changing the access specification to any 100% read, > 0% >>>> random test will generate the errors. Larger block sizes _seem_ to >>>> >>>> >>> make >>> >>> >>>> it happen more frequently so I have created a 256k block size test > for >>>> the above access specifications. I have been using 16 and 64 >>>> >>>> >>> outstanding >>> >>> >>>> I/O's but anything above zero seems to show the error. >>>> >>>> Networking on both ends is via Intel e1000 cards and jumbo frames > are >>>> enabled, and so is flow control, NAPI is also enabled on the > Openfiler >>>> box. All other network settings are default. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Try without all the tweaking and then enable them one by one. >>> >>> Also have you successfully run the benchmarks on the local box > without >>> going through iSCSI? >>> >>> >>> R. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Rafiu Fakunle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 28 November 2006 1:30 a.m. >>>> To: Dave Watkins >>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [OF-users] iSCSI bug? >>>> >>>> Dave Watkins wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Still the same, both with bonding enabled and disabled unfortunatly >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> First: >>>> >>>> try adding "nosoftlockup" to the grub boot options and then run the >>>> benchmarks again. >>>> >>>> Next: >>>> >>>> http://www.openfiler.com/download/PACKAGES/iscsi_trgt-kernel-r78.ccs >>>> http://www.openfiler.com/download/PACKAGES/iscsi_trgt-r78.ccs >>>> >>>> (kernel and userland) >>>> >>>> same as before (--replace-files) >>>> >>>> Finally: >>>> >>>> Also a bit more detail about your test set-up (components, > parameters, >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> triggers etc) would be great. >>>> >>>> R. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Rafiu Fakunle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Monday, 27 November 2006 2:52 p.m. >>>>> To: Rafiu Fakunle >>>>> Cc: Dave Watkins; [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [OF-users] iSCSI bug? >>>>> >>>>> Rafiu Fakunle wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Dave Watkins wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok, UP is fine. To be sure it wasn't the e1000 driver I also > tried >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> using >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> only the Broadcom NIC's as well. Under UP there is no error, > under >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> SMP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> the error reoccurs even with e1000 not loaded and no bonding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hope this helps >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Immensely. I'm just doing up a changeset for you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > http://www.openfiler.com/download/PACKAGES/iscsi_trgt-kernel-0.4.14.ccs >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> conary update iscsi_trgt-kernel-0.4.14.ccs --replace-files >>>>> >>>>> Then test again with 2.6.17.14-0.3.smp.x86_64 (with and without >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> bonding) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thx, >>>>> >>>>> R. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> R. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Rafiu Fakunle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 27 >>>>>>> November 2006 1:15 p.m. >>>>>>> To: Dave Watkins >>>>>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OF-users] iSCSI bug? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, and UP without trunking? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> R. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dave Watkins wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With or without trunking seem to generate the same problem >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Without trunking I got >>>>>>>> BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Call Trace: <IRQ> <ffffffff8029f73c>{softlockup_tick+210} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80289151>{update_process_times+66} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff802713fe>{smp_local_timer_interrupt+35} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80271463>{smp_apic_timer_interrupt+65} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8025f54c>{apic_timer_interrupt+132} <EOI> >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80224b87>{tcp_sendmsg+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80413bba>{inet_ioctl+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff88141216>{:iscsi_trgt:is_data_available+62} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff881419e7>{:iscsi_trgt:istd+1460} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80403ea6>{tcp_sendpage+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027fef6>{__wake_up_common+67} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff88141433>{:iscsi_trgt:istd+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80231a7d>{kthread+200} >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> <ffffffff8025f8a2>{child_rip+8} >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027308f>{flat_send_IPI_mask+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027308f>{flat_send_IPI_mask+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027308f>{flat_send_IPI_mask+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff802319b5>{kthread+0} >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> <ffffffff8025f89a>{child_rip+0} >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Call Trace: <IRQ> <ffffffff8029f73c>{softlockup_tick+210} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80289151>{update_process_times+66} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff802713fe>{smp_local_timer_interrupt+35} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80271463>{smp_apic_timer_interrupt+65} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8025f54c>{apic_timer_interrupt+132} <EOI> >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80224b87>{tcp_sendmsg+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff881411c0>{:iscsi_trgt:nthread_wakeup+35} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff881411b3>{:iscsi_trgt:nthread_wakeup+22} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8814219a>{:iscsi_trgt:istd+3431} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80403ea6>{tcp_sendpage+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027fef6>{__wake_up_common+67} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff88141433>{:iscsi_trgt:istd+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80231a7d>{kthread+200} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8025f8a2>{child_rip+8} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027308f>{flat_send_IPI_mask+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027308f>{flat_send_IPI_mask+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027308f>{flat_send_IPI_mask+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff802319b5>{kthread+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8025f89a>{child_rip+0} >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Re-enabling trunking again and I get >>>>>>>> BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Call Trace: <IRQ> <ffffffff8029f73c>{softlockup_tick+210} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80289151>{update_process_times+66} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff802713fe>{smp_local_timer_interrupt+35} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80271463>{smp_apic_timer_interrupt+65} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8025f54c>{apic_timer_interrupt+132} <EOI> >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80254356>{tcp_ioctl+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8020af50>{__might_sleep+30} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff802326d7>{lock_sock+28} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80263257>{_spin_lock_bh+9} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8022fd23>{release_sock+15} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff802543a2>{tcp_ioctl+76} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80413c44>{inet_ioctl+138} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff88141216>{:iscsi_trgt:is_data_available+62} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8814125a>{:iscsi_trgt:do_recv+41} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8023081f>{qdisc_restart+24} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8022eaa6>{dev_queue_xmit+510} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8807c266>{:bonding:bond_dev_queue_xmit+489} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8023277e>{lock_sock+195} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8807fd96>{:bonding:bond_xmit_roundrobin+154} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80232136>{__tcp_push_pending_frames+1367} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8022fd23>{release_sock+15} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80225551>{tcp_sendmsg+2506} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80236f84>{do_sock_write+199} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff803dbac1>{sock_writev+220} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8025db21>{cache_alloc_refill+237} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80220d80>{tcp_transmit_skb+1579} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80408067>{tcp_retransmit_skb+1352} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80254356>{tcp_ioctl+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8024f5a4>{finish_wait+52} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff803e0d10>{sk_stream_wait_memory+458} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80291608>{autoremove_wake_function+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80291608>{autoremove_wake_function+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8022fd23>{release_sock+15} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80246a25>{try_to_wake_up+955} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff88141609>{:iscsi_trgt:istd+470} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80403ea6>{tcp_sendpage+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027fef6>{__wake_up_common+67} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff88141433>{:iscsi_trgt:istd+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff80231a7d>{kthread+200} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8025f8a2>{child_rip+8} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027308f>{flat_send_IPI_mask+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027308f>{flat_send_IPI_mask+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027308f>{flat_send_IPI_mask+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff802319b5>{kthread+0} >>>>>>>> <ffffffff8025f89a>{child_rip+0} >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Without trunking though the write performance after this doesn't >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> seem >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> be affected (still at about 80-90MB rather than down at less > than >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 10MB) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Rafiu Fakunle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, > 27 >>>>>>>> November 2006 12:27 p.m. >>>>>>>> To: Dave Watkins >>>>>>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OF-users] iSCSI bug? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dave Watkins wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry about that, I remembered as soon as I sent it that I > hadn't >>>>>>>>> included version. It's x86_64 version 2.2 (did a conary > updateall >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2.1 beta. Uname -r gives 2.6.17.14-0.3.smp.x86_64. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'll try with a UP kernel although it will take some time as I >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> have >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> rebuild the e1000 module from the UP kernel sources. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Try without the network trunking anyway in the meantime. Would > be >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> an >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> interesting test. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> R. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'll let you know >>>>>>>>> if I can reproduce on the UP kernel. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think it's related to that ticket as they are all > writes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> anyway >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and they only see the problem on large files. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Rafiu Fakunle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, > 27 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> November 2006 11:40 a.m. >>>>>>>>> To: Dave Watkins >>>>>>>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OF-users] iSCSI bug? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Dave, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Excellent test and bug report. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I wonder whether it may be related to this: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://project.openfiler.com/tracker/ticket/435 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can you try to reproduce with a UP kernel pls. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also I need the output of `uname -r` >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thx, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> R. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> FTR: this is running r58 from IET svn >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dave Watkins wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi All >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think I've found a bug in the iscsi target software in my >>>>>>>>>> benchmarking/testing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some background on the hardware first in case it may be > related. >>>>>>>>>> Dual core/dual opteron with 2GB of ram >>>>>>>>>> 3ware 8006 2 port raid card for OS drives >>>>>>>>>> 3ware 9550SX card for data drives >>>>>>>>>> Dual GB Broadcom on-board NIC's teamed into bond0 (management) >>>>>>>>>> Quad port Intel PCI-E GB NIC with all 4 ports teamed into > bond1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> (main >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> iscsi data network) >>>>>>>>>> 4 x 250GB WD SATA HDD's in RAID5 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of note here is that I have had to replace the e1000 driver > with >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> latest from Intel to support the quad port card >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have made some volumes and mounted them on various windows >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> servers >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> have been using iobench to tune performance of the system. > When >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> using >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> read only test pattern I see this >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Call Trace: <IRQ> <ffffffff8029f73c>{softlockup_tick+210} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff80289151>{update_process_times+66} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff802713fe>{smp_local_timer_interrupt+35} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff80271463>{smp_apic_timer_interrupt+65} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8025f54c>{apic_timer_interrupt+132} <EOI> >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff88141486>{:iscsi_trgt:istd+83} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff88141476>{:iscsi_trgt:istd+67} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff80403ea6>{tcp_sendpage+0} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027fef6>{__wake_up_common+67} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff88141433>{:iscsi_trgt:istd+0} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff80231a7d>{kthread+200} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8025f8a2>{child_rip+8} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff802319b5>{kthread+0} >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <ffffffff8025f89a>{child_rip+0} >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Call Trace: <IRQ> <ffffffff8029f73c>{softlockup_tick+210} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff80289151>{update_process_times+66} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff802713fe>{smp_local_timer_interrupt+35} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff80271463>{smp_apic_timer_interrupt+65} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8025f54c>{apic_timer_interrupt+132} <EOI> >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff802631ec>{_spin_unlock_irqrestore+8} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff80246a25>{try_to_wake_up+955} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff881411cc>{:iscsi_trgt:nthread_wakeup+47} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8814219a>{:iscsi_trgt:istd+3431} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff80403ea6>{tcp_sendpage+0} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8027fef6>{__wake_up_common+67} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff88141433>{:iscsi_trgt:istd+0} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff80231a7d>{kthread+200} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8025f8a2>{child_rip+8} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff8029131c>{keventd_create_kthread+0} >>>>>>>>>> <ffffffff802319b5>{kthread+0} >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <ffffffff8025f89a>{child_rip+0} >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Doing write only based patterns this doesn't come up. After > this >>>>>>>>>> performance of the system dives (from about 110MB/sec of iscsi >>>>>>>>>> performance to about 10MB/sec). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is fairly reproducible here so if you need anymore >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> information >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ask. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Openfiler-users mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.openfiler.com/mailman/listinfo/openfiler-users >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Openfiler-users mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.openfiler.com/mailman/listinfo/openfiler-users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Openfiler-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openfiler.com/mailman/listinfo/openfiler-users
