Am 22.02.2016 um 10:02 hat Dr. David Alan Gilbert geschrieben: > * Changlong Xie (xiecl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote: > > On 02/20/2016 10:28 PM, Max Reitz wrote: > > >On 19.02.2016 12:24, Alberto Garcia wrote: > > >>On Fri 19 Feb 2016 09:26:53 AM CET, Wen Congyang <we...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > >>wrote: > > >> > > >>>>>If quorum has two children(A, B). A do flush sucessfully, but B > > >>>>>flush failed. We MUST choice A as winner rather than just pick > > >>>>>anyone of them. Otherwise the filesystem of guest will become > > >>>>>read-only with following errors: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>end_request: I/O error, dev vda, sector 11159960 > > >>>>>Aborting journal on device vda3-8 > > >>>>>EXT4-fs error (device vda3): ext4_journal_start_sb:327: Detected abort > > >>>>>journal > > >>>>>EXT4-fs (vda3): Remounting filesystem read-only > > >>>> > > >>>>Hi Xie, > > >>>> > > >>>>Let's see if I'm getting this right: > > >>>> > > >>>>- When Quorum flushes to disk, there's a vote among the return values of > > >>>> the flush operations of its members, and the one that wins is the one > > >>>> that Quorum returns. > > >>>> > > >>>>- If there's a tie then Quorum choses the first result from the list of > > >>>> winners. > > >>>> > > >>>>- With your patch you want to give priority to the vote with result == 0 > > >>>> if there's any, so Quorum would return 0 (and succeed). > > >>>> > > >>>>This seems to me like an ad-hoc fix for a particular use case. What > > >>>>if you have 3 members and two of them fail with the same error code? > > >>>>Would you still return 0 or the error code from the other two? > > >>> > > >>>For example: > > >>>children.0 returns 0 > > >>>children.1 returns -EIO > > >>>children.2 returns -EPIPE > > >>> > > >>>In this case, quorum returns -EPIPE now(without this patch). > > >>> > > >>>For example: > > >>>children.0 returns -EPIPE > > >>>children.1 returns -EIO > > >>>children.2 returns 0 > > >>>In this case, quorum returns 0 now. > > >> > > >>My question is: what's the rationale for returning 0 in case a) but not > > >>in case b)? > > >> > > >> a) > > >> children.0 returns -EPIPE > > >> children.1 returns -EIO > > >> children.2 returns 0 > > >> > > >> b) > > >> children.0 returns -EIO > > >> children.1 returns -EIO > > >> children.2 returns 0 > > >> > > >>In both cases you have one successful flush and two errors. You want to > > >>return always 0 in case a) and always -EIO in case b). But the only > > >>difference is that in case b) the errors happen to be the same, so why > > >>does that matter? > > >> > > >>That said, I'm not very convinced of the current logics of the Quorum > > >>flush code either, so it's not even a problem with your patch... it > > >>seems to me that the code should follow the same logics as in the > > >>read/write case: if the number of correct flushes >= threshold then > > >>return 0, else select the most common error code. > > > > > >I'm not convinced of the logic either, which is why I waited for you to > > >respond to this patch. :-) > > > > > >Intuitively, I'd expect Quorum to return an error if flushing failed for > > >any of the children, because, well, flushing failed. I somehow feel like > > >flushing is different from a read or write operation and therefore > > >ignoring the threshold would be fine here. However, maybe my intuition > > >is just off. > > > > > >Anyway, regardless of that, if we do take the threshold into account, we > > >should not use the exact error value for voting but just whether an > > >error occurred or not. If all but one children fail to flush (all for > > >different reasons), I find it totally wrong to return success. We should > > >then just return -EIO or something. > > > > > Hi Berto & Max > > > > Thanks for your comments, i'd like to have a summary here. For flush cases: > > > > 1) if flush successfully(result >= 0), result = 0; else if result < 0, > > result = -EIO. then invoke quorum_count_vote > > 2) if correct flushes >= threshold, mark correct flushes as winner directly.
Please try to return one of the real error codes instead of -EIO. Essentially we should use the same logic as for writes (like Berto suggested above). > I find it difficult to understand how this corresponds to the behaviour needed > in COLO, where we have the NBD and the real storage on the primary; in that > case the failure of the real storage should give an error to the guest, but > the > failure of the NBD shouldn't produce a guest visible failure. That's probably because you're abusing quorum as an active mirroring filter, which it really isn't. This is okay for now so you have something to work with, but I expect that eventually you'll need a different driver. (Well, or maybe I'm mistaken and you actually do need to read back data from NBD to compare it to the real storage - do you?) Anyway, I'm curious how you would handle a failed write/flush request to the NBD target. Simply ignoring it doesn't feel right; in case of a failover, wouldn't you switch to a potentially corrupted image then? Kevin
