Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:40:00 + Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk wrote: One problem with the code that's been committed is that the shutdown event handler doesn't get run during a suspend operation so an emergency unload still gets done when running acpiconf -s3. Something else I noticed today: I've just got a new disk that supports NCQ and found the kern.cam.ada.ada_send_ordered sysctl that appears to enable/disable its use (?). But the shutdown handler that spins the disk down only gets initialized if ada_send_ordered is enabled. I was wondering what the reason for this is? -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Bruce Cran wrote: On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:40:00 + Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk wrote: One problem with the code that's been committed is that the shutdown event handler doesn't get run during a suspend operation so an emergency unload still gets done when running acpiconf -s3. Something else I noticed today: I've just got a new disk that supports NCQ and found the kern.cam.ada.ada_send_ordered sysctl that appears to enable/disable its use (?). ada_send_ordered controls periodical non-queued commands insertion to avoid possible infinite commands starvation and timeouts as result. NCQ can't be disabled now. But the shutdown handler that spins the disk down only gets initialized if ada_send_ordered is enabled. I was wondering what the reason for this is? Interesting question. That code came as-is from da driver and I can't explain it. I have feeling that it's wrong. -- Alexander Motin ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Best wrote: On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote: Alexander Best wrote: On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote: Alexander Best wrote: On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 + Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's garanteed not to break any other CAM devices (i'm thinking about the aac controller issue). you could revert your previous shutdown work and plug olivers patch into CAM. you might want to replace the combination of flush/standby immediate with sleep. One problem with the code that's been committed is that the shutdown event handler doesn't get run during a suspend operation so an emergency unload still gets done when running acpiconf -s3. unfortunately i don't think a can help you on that one. acpi never worked for me! even 'acpiconf -s1' will hopelessly crash my system. :( It is not necessary to have fully working suspend to work on this. Bounce mode should be enough. If bounce is also not working for you - it definitely should be the first thing to fix. bounce mode? sorry i'm lost. sysctl debug.acpi.suspend_bounce=1 It will make system to wake up back immediately after suspending all devices, instead of transition to requested S-state. thanks. i'll investigate a little bit regarding this issue. under single user mode 'acpiconf -s 1' works with and without bounce mode set. under multi user mode however both modes fail. i've made sure kldstat reports the same modules loaded both under single and multi user mode so it seems no module (i suspected nvidia.ko or rtc.ko) is causing the acpi issue in multi user mode. maybe HAL is causing problems. i'll check that out. alexander leidinger informd me that the cause for this might be the fact that the kernel modules might be loaded in single user mode, but they're not being accessed. since i read somewhere that snd_hda might be causing problems with acpi i stopped the musicpd daemon and unloaded snd_hda ans sound. doing 'acpiconf -s1' didn't stall the system (i set debug.acpi.suspend_bounce=1) and my system came backup again. so snd_hda/sound are defanetly causing problems for acpi. however they are not the only modules causing problems. after the system came back the following message was printed repeatedlyy to the console: swap_pager: indefinite wait buffer ... although my usb keyboard was working i couldn't perform certain actions: 1) switching to a differnt tty worked, but i couldn't log in (input was simply ignored) 2) i could enter chars on ttyv0, but ctrl+alt+del didn't do anything so i had to do a hard reset. cheers. alex cheers. alex -- Alexander Motin -- a13x -- a13x ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:37:00 -0600, Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: 1) switching to a differnt tty worked, but i couldn't log in (input was simply ignored) I don't mean to derail this thread if this is completely unrelated, but we've been having issues with FreeBSD 8.0 and 8.1 dying on our ESX 4.0 cluster. The usual result is that the machine stops responding to all network activity and at the console you can switch ttys but it doesn't accept any input. We can't find any absolute hard evidence yet, but we think it might have to do with the preferred path changing to the SAN and FreeBSD freaking out. Could this possibly be boiling down to the same core issue? Regards, Mark ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 + Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's garanteed not to break any other CAM devices (i'm thinking about the aac controller issue). you could revert your previous shutdown work and plug olivers patch into CAM. you might want to replace the combination of flush/standby immediate with sleep. One problem with the code that's been committed is that the shutdown event handler doesn't get run during a suspend operation so an emergency unload still gets done when running acpiconf -s3. -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 + Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's garanteed not to break any other CAM devices (i'm thinking about the aac controller issue). you could revert your previous shutdown work and plug olivers patch into CAM. you might want to replace the combination of flush/standby immediate with sleep. One problem with the code that's been committed is that the shutdown event handler doesn't get run during a suspend operation so an emergency unload still gets done when running acpiconf -s3. unfortunately i don't think a can help you on that one. acpi never worked for me! even 'acpiconf -s1' will hopelessly crash my system. :( cheers. alex -- Bruce Cran -- a13x ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Alexander Best wrote: On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 + Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's garanteed not to break any other CAM devices (i'm thinking about the aac controller issue). you could revert your previous shutdown work and plug olivers patch into CAM. you might want to replace the combination of flush/standby immediate with sleep. One problem with the code that's been committed is that the shutdown event handler doesn't get run during a suspend operation so an emergency unload still gets done when running acpiconf -s3. unfortunately i don't think a can help you on that one. acpi never worked for me! even 'acpiconf -s1' will hopelessly crash my system. :( It is not necessary to have fully working suspend to work on this. Bounce mode should be enough. If bounce is also not working for you - it definitely should be the first thing to fix. From the other side ATM I see no good approach to this, as soon as CAM devices are not present on NewBus to handle suspend events. Unless SIM drivers will expose those events to CAM in some way. -- Alexander Motin ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote: Alexander Best wrote: On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 + Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's garanteed not to break any other CAM devices (i'm thinking about the aac controller issue). you could revert your previous shutdown work and plug olivers patch into CAM. you might want to replace the combination of flush/standby immediate with sleep. One problem with the code that's been committed is that the shutdown event handler doesn't get run during a suspend operation so an emergency unload still gets done when running acpiconf -s3. unfortunately i don't think a can help you on that one. acpi never worked for me! even 'acpiconf -s1' will hopelessly crash my system. :( It is not necessary to have fully working suspend to work on this. Bounce mode should be enough. If bounce is also not working for you - it definitely should be the first thing to fix. bounce mode? sorry i'm lost. From the other side ATM I see no good approach to this, as soon as CAM devices are not present on NewBus to handle suspend events. Unless SIM drivers will expose those events to CAM in some way. -- Alexander Motin -- a13x ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote: Alexander Best wrote: On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 + Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's garanteed not to break any other CAM devices (i'm thinking about the aac controller issue). you could revert your previous shutdown work and plug olivers patch into CAM. you might want to replace the combination of flush/standby immediate with sleep. One problem with the code that's been committed is that the shutdown event handler doesn't get run during a suspend operation so an emergency unload still gets done when running acpiconf -s3. unfortunately i don't think a can help you on that one. acpi never worked for me! even 'acpiconf -s1' will hopelessly crash my system. :( It is not necessary to have fully working suspend to work on this. Bounce mode should be enough. If bounce is also not working for you - it definitely should be the first thing to fix. bounce mode? sorry i'm lost. $ sysctl debug.acpi.suspend_bounce debug.acpi.suspend_bounce: 0 ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Alexander Best wrote: On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote: Alexander Best wrote: On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 + Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's garanteed not to break any other CAM devices (i'm thinking about the aac controller issue). you could revert your previous shutdown work and plug olivers patch into CAM. you might want to replace the combination of flush/standby immediate with sleep. One problem with the code that's been committed is that the shutdown event handler doesn't get run during a suspend operation so an emergency unload still gets done when running acpiconf -s3. unfortunately i don't think a can help you on that one. acpi never worked for me! even 'acpiconf -s1' will hopelessly crash my system. :( It is not necessary to have fully working suspend to work on this. Bounce mode should be enough. If bounce is also not working for you - it definitely should be the first thing to fix. bounce mode? sorry i'm lost. sysctl debug.acpi.suspend_bounce=1 It will make system to wake up back immediately after suspending all devices, instead of transition to requested S-state. -- Alexander Motin ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote: Alexander Best wrote: On Wed Nov 17 10, Alexander Motin wrote: Alexander Best wrote: On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Cran wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:03:09 + Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's garanteed not to break any other CAM devices (i'm thinking about the aac controller issue). you could revert your previous shutdown work and plug olivers patch into CAM. you might want to replace the combination of flush/standby immediate with sleep. One problem with the code that's been committed is that the shutdown event handler doesn't get run during a suspend operation so an emergency unload still gets done when running acpiconf -s3. unfortunately i don't think a can help you on that one. acpi never worked for me! even 'acpiconf -s1' will hopelessly crash my system. :( It is not necessary to have fully working suspend to work on this. Bounce mode should be enough. If bounce is also not working for you - it definitely should be the first thing to fix. bounce mode? sorry i'm lost. sysctl debug.acpi.suspend_bounce=1 It will make system to wake up back immediately after suspending all devices, instead of transition to requested S-state. thanks. i'll investigate a little bit regarding this issue. under single user mode 'acpiconf -s 1' works with and without bounce mode set. under multi user mode however both modes fail. i've made sure kldstat reports the same modules loaded both under single and multi user mode so it seems no module (i suspected nvidia.ko or rtc.ko) is causing the acpi issue in multi user mode. maybe HAL is causing problems. i'll check that out. cheers. alex -- Alexander Motin -- a13x ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu Oct 21 10, Alexander Best wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote:
The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical
laptop or desktop system, you end up spinning the disk down and back
up several hundred times a day, which increases power consumption, I/O
latency and wear.
Do we think our users are silly enough to set a short timeout of just a
few minutes? I'd think most would use a setting of 20-30 minutes at
a minimum. I never did understand why there were so many warnings;
after all, some laptops even come with a default APM scheme in their
HDDs that powers the disk down after 7 seconds!
personally i still think something like the attached patch would be nice to
have. there's a chance users might type the following:
'atacontrol spindown device 10'
thinking the timeout value is measured in minutes. although this gets
mentioned
in atacontrol(4) it might still be worth reminding the user that he/she is
performing actions which could damage the hardware.
i just stumbled upon PR 144770, where a somebody seems to have mistaken the
spindown value for minutes instead of seconds. so i really think we should have
this warning in atacontrol!
+1 from brucec, if i understood him correctly.
another possibility would be of course changing the spindown value from seconds
to minutes. imo this seems very reasonable, because measuring spindown time in
seconds is too fine grained and not intuitive. just like specifying the
'shutdown -p XX' delay in microseconds would not be useful. ;)
cheers.
alex
cheers.
alex
--
Bruce Cran
--
a13x
diff --git a/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c b/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
index 4354ddf..75a131a 100644
--- a/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
+++ b/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
@@ -317,6 +317,10 @@ ata_spindown(int fd, const char *dev, const char *arg)
if (arg != NULL) {
tmo = strtoul(arg, NULL, 0);
+ if (tmo 600)
+ warnx(setting spindown timeout below 10 minutes is \
+ not recommended (see EXAMPLES section of \
+ atacontrol(8))\n);
if (ioctl(fd, IOCATASSPINDOWN, tmo) 0)
err(1, ioctl(IOCATASSPINDOWN));
} else {
--
a13x
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Alexander Best wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote:
The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical
laptop or desktop system, you end up spinning the disk down and back
up several hundred times a day, which increases power consumption, I/O
latency and wear.
Do we think our users are silly enough to set a short timeout of just a
few minutes? I'd think most would use a setting of 20-30 minutes at
a minimum. I never did understand why there were so many warnings;
after all, some laptops even come with a default APM scheme in their
HDDs that powers the disk down after 7 seconds!
personally i still think something like the attached patch would be nice to
have. there's a chance users might type the following:
'atacontrol spindown device 10'
thinking the timeout value is measured in minutes. although this gets
mentioned
in atacontrol(4) it might still be worth reminding the user that he/she is
performing actions which could damage the hardware.
i just stumbled upon PR 144770, where a somebody seems to have mistaken the
spindown value for minutes instead of seconds. so i really think we should
have
this warning in atacontrol!
+1 from brucec, if i understood him correctly.
another possibility would be of course changing the spindown value from
seconds
to minutes. imo this seems very reasonable, because measuring spindown time in
seconds is too fine grained and not intuitive. just like specifying the
'shutdown -p XX' delay in microseconds would not be useful. ;)
cheers.
alex
cheers.
alex
--
Bruce Cran
--
a13x
diff --git a/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c b/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
index 4354ddf..75a131a 100644
--- a/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
+++ b/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
@@ -317,6 +317,10 @@ ata_spindown(int fd, const char *dev, const char *arg)
if (arg != NULL) {
tmo = strtoul(arg, NULL, 0);
+ if (tmo 600)
+ warnx(setting spindown timeout below 10 minutes is \
+ not recommended (see EXAMPLES section of \
+ atacontrol(8))\n);
if (ioctl(fd, IOCATASSPINDOWN, tmo) 0)
err(1, ioctl(IOCATASSPINDOWN));
} else {
Why not just be consistent with other interfaces and provide
suffixes for the values to parse out integral times (i.e. 1 [second],
1m, 2h)? As long as the value is behavior is properly documented in
the manpage (and potentially as examples in the usage message), that
should be enough.
Thanks,
-Garrett
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Wed Oct 27 10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Alexander Best wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote:
The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical
laptop or desktop system, you end up spinning the disk down and back
up several hundred times a day, which increases power consumption, I/O
latency and wear.
Do we think our users are silly enough to set a short timeout of just a
few minutes? I'd think most would use a setting of 20-30 minutes at
a minimum. I never did understand why there were so many warnings;
after all, some laptops even come with a default APM scheme in their
HDDs that powers the disk down after 7 seconds!
personally i still think something like the attached patch would be nice to
have. there's a chance users might type the following:
'atacontrol spindown device 10'
thinking the timeout value is measured in minutes. although this gets
mentioned
in atacontrol(4) it might still be worth reminding the user that he/she is
performing actions which could damage the hardware.
i just stumbled upon PR 144770, where a somebody seems to have mistaken the
spindown value for minutes instead of seconds. so i really think we should
have
this warning in atacontrol!
+1 from brucec, if i understood him correctly.
another possibility would be of course changing the spindown value from
seconds
to minutes. imo this seems very reasonable, because measuring spindown time
in
seconds is too fine grained and not intuitive. just like specifying the
'shutdown -p XX' delay in microseconds would not be useful. ;)
cheers.
alex
cheers.
alex
--
Bruce Cran
--
a13x
diff --git a/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c b/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
index 4354ddf..75a131a 100644
--- a/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
+++ b/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
@@ -317,6 +317,10 @@ ata_spindown(int fd, const char *dev, const char *arg)
if (arg != NULL) {
tmo = strtoul(arg, NULL, 0);
+ if (tmo 600)
+ warnx(setting spindown timeout below 10 minutes is \
+ not recommended (see EXAMPLES section of \
+ atacontrol(8))\n);
if (ioctl(fd, IOCATASSPINDOWN, tmo) 0)
err(1, ioctl(IOCATASSPINDOWN));
} else {
Why not just be consistent with other interfaces and provide
suffixes for the values to parse out integral times (i.e. 1 [second],
1m, 2h)? As long as the value is behavior is properly documented in
the manpage (and potentially as examples in the usage message), that
should be enough.
that would increase usability, since users don't have to specify large values
in seconds, if they e.g. want the spindown to happen after 24 hours (24*60*60).
but this will not solve the real issue: specifying 'atacontrol spindown 1s'
WILL damage your hardware! imo users should be reminded about this even if this
is already mentioned in the manual.
also: will current scripts which set 'atacontrol spindown 600' e.g. continue to
work after implementing the use of suffixes?
Thanks,
-Garrett
--
a13x
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed Oct 27 10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Alexander Best wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote:
The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical
laptop or desktop system, you end up spinning the disk down and back
up several hundred times a day, which increases power consumption, I/O
latency and wear.
Do we think our users are silly enough to set a short timeout of just a
few minutes? I'd think most would use a setting of 20-30 minutes at
a minimum. I never did understand why there were so many warnings;
after all, some laptops even come with a default APM scheme in their
HDDs that powers the disk down after 7 seconds!
personally i still think something like the attached patch would be nice
to
have. there's a chance users might type the following:
'atacontrol spindown device 10'
thinking the timeout value is measured in minutes. although this gets
mentioned
in atacontrol(4) it might still be worth reminding the user that he/she is
performing actions which could damage the hardware.
i just stumbled upon PR 144770, where a somebody seems to have mistaken the
spindown value for minutes instead of seconds. so i really think we should
have
this warning in atacontrol!
+1 from brucec, if i understood him correctly.
another possibility would be of course changing the spindown value from
seconds
to minutes. imo this seems very reasonable, because measuring spindown
time in
seconds is too fine grained and not intuitive. just like specifying the
'shutdown -p XX' delay in microseconds would not be useful. ;)
cheers.
alex
cheers.
alex
--
Bruce Cran
--
a13x
diff --git a/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c b/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
index 4354ddf..75a131a 100644
--- a/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
+++ b/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
@@ -317,6 +317,10 @@ ata_spindown(int fd, const char *dev, const char
*arg)
if (arg != NULL) {
tmo = strtoul(arg, NULL, 0);
+ if (tmo 600)
+ warnx(setting spindown timeout below 10 minutes is
\
+ not recommended (see EXAMPLES section of \
+ atacontrol(8))\n);
if (ioctl(fd, IOCATASSPINDOWN, tmo) 0)
err(1, ioctl(IOCATASSPINDOWN));
} else {
Why not just be consistent with other interfaces and provide
suffixes for the values to parse out integral times (i.e. 1 [second],
1m, 2h)? As long as the value is behavior is properly documented in
the manpage (and potentially as examples in the usage message), that
should be enough.
that would increase usability, since users don't have to specify large values
in seconds, if they e.g. want the spindown to happen after 24 hours
(24*60*60).
but this will not solve the real issue: specifying 'atacontrol spindown 1s'
WILL damage your hardware! imo users should be reminded about this even if
this
is already mentioned in the manual.
Maybe something similar to kern.geom.debugflags should be
implemented for this feature as a safety belt for people doing
something stupid?
also: will current scripts which set 'atacontrol spindown 600' e.g. continue
to
work after implementing the use of suffixes?
Yeah... why not :)?
Thanks!
-Garrett
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Alexander Best wrote: i just stumbled upon PR 144770, where a somebody seems to have mistaken the spindown value for minutes instead of seconds. so i really think we should have this warning in atacontrol! +1 from brucec, if i understood him correctly. another possibility would be of course changing the spindown value from seconds to minutes. imo this seems very reasonable, because measuring spindown time in seconds is too fine grained and not intuitive. just like specifying the 'shutdown -p XX' delay in microseconds would not be useful. ;) No, please don't. Changing the meaning of the value from seconds to minutes will break people's existing setups. I'm also against printing a warning for values less than 600. If I want to set the value to 300, I don't want to be slapped with a useless warning. Also note that 300 (and even much less) might be perfectly reasonable, depending on the kind of device! As a rule of thumb, the smaller a drive, the better it is optimized for many spin up/down cycles. For example, I've got a portable HDD mp3 player that contains a 1.8 disk. When playing an mp3 file, it spins up every 20 seconds or so, reads 500 KB, then spins down again. In my opinion, this is purely a documentation issue. If it is well-documented that the spindown value is given in seconds, then that should be sufficient. Supporting values like 5m or 1h would be fine, as long as a value without a letter still means seconds. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Python is an experiment in how much freedom programmers need. Too much freedom and nobody can read another's code; too little and expressiveness is endangered. -- Guido van Rossum ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Alexander Best wrote: but this will not solve the real issue: specifying 'atacontrol spindown 1s' WILL damage your hardware! You're making assumptions. I can very well imagine scenarios where 1s might make sense and will not damage the hardware, for example when there is no file system mounted from the disk in question. For several years I ran a BBS machine that ran off a memory disk. Every 24 hours it made a backup of its current state by writing a tar file to the raw device of a physical disk (there were no file systems mounted from that disk). Having a spindown time of 1s in such a context certainly wouldn't hurt. Best regards Oliver PS: Please allow me to copy a few things from my collection of quotes which fit very well here: UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn If you aim the gun at your foot and pull the trigger, it's UNIX's job to ensure reliable delivery of the bullet to where you aimed the gun (in this case, Mr. Foot). -- Terry Lambert Unix gives you just enough rope to hang yourself -- and then a couple of more feet, just to be sure. -- Eric Allman -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd I suggested holding a Python Object Oriented Programming Seminar, but the acronym was unpopular. -- Joseph Strout ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Alexander Best wrote: On Wed Oct 27 10, Garrett Cooper wrote: Why not just be consistent with other interfaces and provide suffixes for the values to parse out integral times (i.e. 1 [second], 1m, 2h)? As long as the value is behavior is properly documented in the manpage (and potentially as examples in the usage message), that should be enough. that would increase usability, since users don't have to specify large values in seconds, if they e.g. want the spindown to happen after 24 hours (24*60*60). Largest value that could be set more or less precisely for ATA disks is 5.5hours. Absolute maximum is 12 hours. So 24h interval is just inapplicable. but this will not solve the real issue: specifying 'atacontrol spindown 1s' WILL damage your hardware! imo users should be reminded about this even if this is already mentioned in the manual. I would say WILL depends on hardware. And it's reasonability also depends on situation. -- Alexander Motin ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:04:39 +0200 (CEST) Oliver Fromme o...@lurza.secnetix.de wrote: I'm also against printing a warning for values less than 600. If I want to set the value to 300, I don't want to be slapped with a useless warning. Having just checked Windows and seen that it lets you specify a timeout down to 1 minute with no warnings, I don't think we want to make it more difficult for people to do the same thing on FreeBSD. I don't know if atacontrol already does this, but maybe we could have a log entry, for example: atacontrol /dev/ad0 spindown 60 spin-down timer set to 60 seconds. -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Alexander Best wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org writes:
no need to get upset. you asked where i found the information regarding the
wear impact of spinning down disks and i gave you the answer.
I am upset by your claim that doing spin downs upon reboot might be
even worse than not doing spindowns upon shutdown, because you should
know better, and following your advice could damage people's hardware.
well...since currently hdds don't spindown during shutdown the current
behavior
is in fact damaging hardware. i don't quite understand why this hasn't been
fixed yet. the patch is available and known to work. it won't cause any
problems with SCSI devices like mav's current implementation, since the
spindown code is limited to ATA devices.
instead of talking and talking somebody should drop the changes into HEAD!
Comparing two ways implementing spindown, I've recalled that both of
them using xpt_polled_action() method, which depends on working
controller polling operation. So they could be almost equaly not good.
But the method present in HEAD now is more universal. Looking on fact
that need of spindown is not so obvious for SCSI devices (in SAN
environments), we can just make kern.cam.power_down tunable a bitmask of
supported protocols for now. Patch is attached.
But there is still question that stops me from going one way or another
now. Where all this this things should be done properly: in peripheral
driver, as proposed (then it have to be duplicated in da and ada drivers
and possibly some others), or at the transport level, as present,
independent from drivers? I am not sure, but have feeling that tape
drives (for example) may also benefit from head parking before powering
down.
--
Alexander Motin
--- cam_xpt.c.prev 2010-09-22 07:52:38.0 +0300
+++ cam_xpt.c 2010-10-24 18:50:13.0 +0300
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ static struct xpt_softc xsoftc;
TUNABLE_INT(kern.cam.boot_delay, xsoftc.boot_delay);
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_cam, OID_AUTO, boot_delay, CTLFLAG_RDTUN,
xsoftc.boot_delay, 0, Bus registration wait time);
-static int xpt_power_down = 0;
+static int xpt_power_down = 1;
TUNABLE_INT(kern.cam.power_down, xpt_power_down);
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_cam, OID_AUTO, power_down, CTLFLAG_RW,
xpt_power_down, 0, Power down devices on shutdown);
@@ -4646,11 +4646,16 @@ xpt_shutdown_dev(struct cam_ed *device,
return (1);
if (device-protocol == PROTO_ATA) {
+ if ((xpt_power_down 1) == 0)
+ return (1);
/* Only power down device if it supports power management. */
if ((device-ident_data.support.command1
ATA_SUPPORT_POWERMGT) == 0)
return (1);
- } else if (device-protocol != PROTO_SCSI)
+ } else if (device-protocol == PROTO_SCSI) {
+ if ((xpt_power_down 2) == 0)
+ return (1);
+ } else
return (1);
xpt_compile_path(path,
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:47:57 +0300 Alexander Motin m...@freebsd.org wrote: Comparing two ways implementing spindown, I've recalled that both of them using xpt_polled_action() method, which depends on working controller polling operation. So they could be almost equaly not good. But the method present in HEAD now is more universal. Looking on fact that need of spindown is not so obvious for SCSI devices (in SAN environments), we can just make kern.cam.power_down tunable a bitmask of supported protocols for now. Patch is attached. I've just committed the patch to move the functionality into ada(4). Should it be reverted? -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Bruce Cran wrote: I've just committed the patch to move the functionality into ada(4). Should it be reverted? It seems to me that ATA and SCSI devices are sufficiently different (from the code's point of view) that it makes sense to separate the functionality in the ada and da drivers. In other words, I think the commit is good. I'm biased, though. By the way, I also think it's better to issue a standby immediate command, not a sleep command. The former is reversible, i.e. the drive can spin up if required (for whatever reason), while the latter may require a hardware reset, according to the documentation. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Python tricks is a tough one, cuz the language is so clean. E.g., C makes an art of confusing pointers with arrays and strings, which leads to lotsa neat pointer tricks; APL mistakes everything for an array, leading to neat one-liners; and Perl confuses everything period, making each line a joyous adventure wink. -- Tim Peters ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Bruce Cran wrote: On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:47:57 +0300 Alexander Motin m...@freebsd.org wrote: Comparing two ways implementing spindown, I've recalled that both of them using xpt_polled_action() method, which depends on working controller polling operation. So they could be almost equaly not good. But the method present in HEAD now is more universal. Looking on fact that need of spindown is not so obvious for SCSI devices (in SAN environments), we can just make kern.cam.power_down tunable a bitmask of supported protocols for now. Patch is attached. I've just committed the patch to move the functionality into ada(4). Should it be reverted? Both solutions are possible. I don't have strong enough position to hurry now, when it is already done. It would be nice to hear opinion of SCSI people whether this functionality needed/safe there. -- Alexander Motin ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Sunday 24 October 2010 18:47:57 Alexander Motin wrote: I am not sure, but have feeling that tape drives (for example) may also benefit from head parking before powering down. USB hard disks would benefit as well I think. Although, ideally it should happen after unmounting the last file system. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Tijl Coosemans wrote: On Sunday 24 October 2010 18:47:57 Alexander Motin wrote: I am not sure, but have feeling that tape drives (for example) may also benefit from head parking before powering down. USB hard disks would benefit as well I think. Although, ideally it should happen after unmounting the last file system. Depending on unmount would be excessively aggressive. Far from every device close will be followed by unplugging. Same time nobody denies to run `camcontrol stop daX` before unplugging. USB disks are still da. It would be more interesting to know if this practice applicable to other kinds of SCSI devices. -- Alexander Motin ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu Oct 21 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org writes: no need to get upset. you asked where i found the information regarding the wear impact of spinning down disks and i gave you the answer. I am upset by your claim that doing spin downs upon reboot might be even worse than not doing spindowns upon shutdown, because you should know better, and following your advice could damage people's hardware. well...since currently hdds don't spindown during shutdown the current behavior is in fact damaging hardware. i don't quite understand why this hasn't been fixed yet. the patch is available and known to work. it won't cause any problems with SCSI devices like mav's current implementation, since the spindown code is limited to ATA devices. instead of talking and talking somebody should drop the changes into HEAD! cheers. alex DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no -- a13x ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Alexander Best wrote: the current implementation (kern.cam.power_down) uses a singe sleep operation, whereas the patch by oliver uses flush and standby immediate. Sleep is just more aggressive. It puts device into deeper sleep state. I don't think it is important from wearing point of view. unfortunately almost nobody was aware of mav's work at the time of the discussion. would have been nice to have a note in cam(4) explaining the purpose of kern.cam.power_down. that way a lot of double work could have been avoided. That code was expected to handle spindown on shutdown in unified fashion for ATA and SCSI devices without dependency from peripheral driver (even without one), just using different commands for each protocol. It works, but in current implementation it is unreliable. The problem is that it uses polled operation mode, not supported by some controllers or unreliable on some (e.g. atapicam). So the code is disabled now by default. I haven't yet decided it's future: it should be either reworked or reverted. As positive side -- as soon as CAM is not using NewBus at the moment, CAM registers own shutdown handlers. That allows CAM to receive the howto argument, which allows to separate cases of reboot and shutdown cases just by: if ((howto RB_POWEROFF) == 0) is the ATA(4) subsystem still being actively worked on or will it die out after officially switching to ATA_CAM? the question is, if it is worth implementing hdd spin down for ATA(4)? I don't think it will be really critical. Next months I am going to work on ataraid(4) replacement, which was main declared show stopper for the switch. I hope to trash legacy code some time after switching to ATA_CAM to clear number of odd things (like almost not working port multipliers support or duplicate drivers), required by it. -- Alexander Motin ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Fri Oct 22 10, Alexander Motin wrote: Alexander Best wrote: the current implementation (kern.cam.power_down) uses a singe sleep operation, whereas the patch by oliver uses flush and standby immediate. Sleep is just more aggressive. It puts device into deeper sleep state. I don't think it is important from wearing point of view. unfortunately almost nobody was aware of mav's work at the time of the discussion. would have been nice to have a note in cam(4) explaining the purpose of kern.cam.power_down. that way a lot of double work could have been avoided. That code was expected to handle spindown on shutdown in unified fashion for ATA and SCSI devices without dependency from peripheral driver (even without one), just using different commands for each protocol. It works, but in current implementation it is unreliable. The problem is that it uses polled operation mode, not supported by some controllers or unreliable on some (e.g. atapicam). So the code is disabled now by default. I haven't yet decided it's future: it should be either reworked or reverted. so how about olivers patch? it will only apply to ata devices so it's garanteed not to break any other CAM devices (i'm thinking about the aac controller issue). you could revert your previous shutdown work and plug olivers patch into CAM. you might want to replace the combination of flush/standby immediate with sleep. cheers. alex As positive side -- as soon as CAM is not using NewBus at the moment, CAM registers own shutdown handlers. That allows CAM to receive the howto argument, which allows to separate cases of reboot and shutdown cases just by: if ((howto RB_POWEROFF) == 0) is the ATA(4) subsystem still being actively worked on or will it die out after officially switching to ATA_CAM? the question is, if it is worth implementing hdd spin down for ATA(4)? I don't think it will be really critical. Next months I am going to work on ataraid(4) replacement, which was main declared show stopper for the switch. I hope to trash legacy code some time after switching to ATA_CAM to clear number of odd things (like almost not working port multipliers support or duplicate drivers), required by it. -- Alexander Motin -- a13x ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Friday 22 October 2010 00:32:54 Paul Wootton wrote: Actually, the green series does spin all the way down, well at least the drive I have does. Here is the output from one of my drives, that I do not think has long left to live. === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Model Family: Western Digital Caviar Green family Device Model: WDC WD5000AADS-00M2B0 Serial Number:WD-WMAV51882791 Firmware Version: 01.00A01 User Capacity:500,107,862,016 bytes Device is:In smartctl database [for details use: -P show] ATA Version is: 8 ATA Standard is: Exact ATA specification draft version not indicated Local Time is:Thu Oct 21 23:31:35 2010 BST SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. SMART support is: Enabled SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x002f 200 200 051Pre-fail Always - 0 3 Spin_Up_Time0x0027 111 104 021Pre-fail Always - 7425 4 Start_Stop_Count0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 98 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 200 200 140Pre-fail Always - 0 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x002e 100 253 000Old_age Always - 0 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 093 093 000Old_age Always - 5295 10 Spin_Retry_Count0x0032 100 253 000Old_age Always - 0 11 Calibration_Retry_Count 0x0032 100 253 000Old_age Always - 0 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 96 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 95 193 Load_Cycle_Count0x0032 001 001 000Old_age Always - 781014 194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 120 102 000Old_age Always - 27 196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 0 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 0 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0030 200 200 000Old_age Offline - 0 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 0 200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0008 200 200 000Old_age Offline - 0 The datasheet for these drive http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-701229.pdfhttp://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-701229.pdf says Reliability/Data Integrity Load/unload cycles (3) 300,000 Limited Warranty (years) (4) (3) Controlled unload at ambient condition (4) The term of the limited warranty my vary by region Also http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=5357 (drive has been validated to 1 million load/unload cycles without issue) Im already at 781014 load cycles, yet the drive is only about 7 months old. Doing the math, I am getting a load/unload cycle about every 24.5 seconds Another 2 months and I will be knocking on for 1 million load/unload cycles As DES has already said, for most people the extra load/unload cycles when rebooting a computer will not be an issue at all and is far more desirable than an emergency park when powering down FreeBSD frequently accesses hard disks (log files, flushing dirty memory pages every 30s,...) and laptop drives tend to have aggressive power saving settings by default. That's why your load cycle is so high. To deal with this you should consider installing sysutils/ataidle and adding these lines to /etc/rc.conf: ataidle_enable=YES ataidle_devices=ad0 ataidle_ad0=-P 0 An alternative is to use atacontrol(8). If you don't mind the spin down when rebooting you can solve the emergency park at shutdown with a simple patch like this: --- sys/dev/ata/ata-disk.c +++ sys/dev/ata/ata-disk.c @@ -193,6 +193,8 @@ if (atadev-param.support.command2 ATA_SUPPORT_FLUSHCACHE) ata_controlcmd(dev, ATA_FLUSHCACHE, 0, 0, 0); +if (atadev-param.support.command1 ATA_SUPPORT_POWERMGT) +ata_controlcmd(dev, ATA_STANDBY_IMMEDIATE, 0, 0, 0); return 0; } signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:07:36 +0200 Tijl Coosemans t...@coosemans.org wrote: FreeBSD frequently accesses hard disks (log files, flushing dirty memory pages every 30s,...) and laptop drives tend to have aggressive power saving settings by default. That's why your load cycle is so high. I'm not sure the APM value updates the idle3 timer inside the drive: it may be necessary to run WD's wdidle3.exe tool to change the power management timer. And yes, people are rather annoyed that it's necessary to have a copy of DOS to update the drive! -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org writes: since there seems no way to distinguish between these two states in ATA(4) it's probably better to leave it as it is, since doing spin downs upon reboot might be even worse than not doing spindowns upon shutdown. No. Where did you get that idea? To repeat what I've said before - several times - in this thread, a modern disk drive can handle hundreds of thousands of controlled unloads but only a few hundred emergency unloads. Given the choice between never spin down and always spin down, the safe alternative is always spin down. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu Oct 21 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org writes: since there seems no way to distinguish between these two states in ATA(4) it's probably better to leave it as it is, since doing spin downs upon reboot might be even worse than not doing spindowns upon shutdown. No. Where did you get that idea? To repeat what I've said before - several times - in this thread, a modern disk drive can handle hundreds of thousands of controlled unloads but only a few hundred emergency unloads. Given the choice between never spin down and always spin down, the safe alternative is always spin down. atacontrol(8) says that: You should not set a spindown timeout on a disk with / or syslog logging on it as the disk will be worn out spinning down and up all the time. this seems to indicate that spinning down a disk has quite an impact. while chatting with bruce cran regarding this matter we discovered that mav@ already implemented this feature back in february, but disabled it by default due to issues with the aac controller. the current implementation (kern.cam.power_down) uses a singe sleep operation, whereas the patch by oliver uses flush and standby immediate. unfortunately almost nobody was aware of mav's work at the time of the discussion. would have been nice to have a note in cam(4) explaining the purpose of kern.cam.power_down. that way a lot of double work could have been avoided. is the ATA(4) subsystem still being actively worked on or will it die out after officially switching to ATA_CAM? the question is, if it is worth implementing hdd spin down for ATA(4)? cheers. alex DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no -- a13x ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no writes: No. Where did you get that idea? To repeat what I've said before - several times - in this thread, a modern disk drive can handle hundreds of thousands of controlled unloads but only a few hundred emergency unloads. Given the choice between never spin down and always spin down, the safe alternative is always spin down. atacontrol(8) says that: You should not set a spindown timeout on a disk with / or syslog logging on it as the disk will be worn out spinning down and up all the time. this seems to indicate that spinning down a disk has quite an impact. The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical laptop or desktop system, you end up spinning the disk down and back up several hundred times a day, which increases power consumption, I/O latency and wear. However, a single emergency unload (what happens when the disk loses power without first unloading the head) shortens the disk's life expectancy as much as hundreds or thousands of controlled unloads. Unless you think our users commonly reboot their computers hundreds or thousands of times between each time they cycle the power, the safe alternative is to *always* spin down during shutdown. I truly hope this is the *last* time I have to repeat this. It's really not that hard to understand. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200 Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote: The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical laptop or desktop system, you end up spinning the disk down and back up several hundred times a day, which increases power consumption, I/O latency and wear. Do we think our users are silly enough to set a short timeout of just a few minutes? I'd think most would use a setting of 20-30 minutes at a minimum. I never did understand why there were so many warnings; after all, some laptops even come with a default APM scheme in their HDDs that powers the disk down after 7 seconds! -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu Oct 21 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no writes: No. Where did you get that idea? To repeat what I've said before - several times - in this thread, a modern disk drive can handle hundreds of thousands of controlled unloads but only a few hundred emergency unloads. Given the choice between never spin down and always spin down, the safe alternative is always spin down. atacontrol(8) says that: You should not set a spindown timeout on a disk with / or syslog logging on it as the disk will be worn out spinning down and up all the time. this seems to indicate that spinning down a disk has quite an impact. The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical laptop or desktop system, you end up spinning the disk down and back up several hundred times a day, which increases power consumption, I/O latency and wear. However, a single emergency unload (what happens when the disk loses power without first unloading the head) shortens the disk's life expectancy as much as hundreds or thousands of controlled unloads. Unless you think our users commonly reboot their computers hundreds or thousands of times between each time they cycle the power, the safe alternative is to *always* spin down during shutdown. I truly hope this is the *last* time I have to repeat this. It's really not that hard to understand. no need to get upset. you asked where i found the information regarding the wear impact of spinning down disks and i gave you the answer. i totally agree with you on this issue. yet again: is it worth changing this for the ata(4) sub system which will probably become obsolete in one or two years? the ata(4) subsytem exists since FreeBSD 4.0. why introduce this change now that it's going to die soon? also as i pointed out in my earlier post, spinning down disks already caused problems with the aac controller. since not a lot of testing went into the spin down code one can expect more controller related issues to arise. cheers. alex DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no -- a13x ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote:
The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical
laptop or desktop system, you end up spinning the disk down and back
up several hundred times a day, which increases power consumption, I/O
latency and wear.
Do we think our users are silly enough to set a short timeout of just a
few minutes? I'd think most would use a setting of 20-30 minutes at
a minimum. I never did understand why there were so many warnings;
after all, some laptops even come with a default APM scheme in their
HDDs that powers the disk down after 7 seconds!
personally i still think something like the attached patch would be nice to
have. there's a chance users might type the following:
'atacontrol spindown device 10'
thinking the timeout value is measured in minutes. although this gets mentioned
in atacontrol(4) it might still be worth reminding the user that he/she is
performing actions which could damage the hardware.
cheers.
alex
--
Bruce Cran
--
a13x
diff --git a/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c b/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
index 4354ddf..75a131a 100644
--- a/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
+++ b/sbin/atacontrol/atacontrol.c
@@ -317,6 +317,10 @@ ata_spindown(int fd, const char *dev, const char *arg)
if (arg != NULL) {
tmo = strtoul(arg, NULL, 0);
+ if (tmo 600)
+ warnx(setting spindown timeout below 10 minutes is \
+ not recommended (see EXAMPLES section of \
+ atacontrol(8))\n);
if (ioctl(fd, IOCATASSPINDOWN, tmo) 0)
err(1, ioctl(IOCATASSPINDOWN));
} else {
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:41:14 + Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: personally i still think something like the attached patch would be nice to have. there's a chance users might type the following: 'atacontrol spindown device 10' thinking the timeout value is measured in minutes. I agree - users coming from ataidle(8) will expect the timeout to be in minutes too. -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:21:10 + Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: atacontrol(8) says that: You should not set a spindown timeout on a disk with / or syslog logging on it as the disk will be worn out spinning down and up all the time. this seems to indicate that spinning down a disk has quite an impact. That's mostly likely a hang-over from older disk technologies when the heads touched the surface on spinning down. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk writes: Do we think our users are silly enough to set a short timeout of just a few minutes? I'd think most would use a setting of 20-30 minutes at a minimum. I never did understand why there were so many warnings; after all, some laptops even come with a default APM scheme in their HDDs that powers the disk down after 7 seconds! Really? That would make the system close to unusable, and the disk's life expectancy would be reduced to a few months; a disk that performs two load / unload cycles per minute on average will need replacing after three to six months. Remember, there was a huge flap a couple of years when Ubuntu shipped with a default timeout of 90 seconds, which is more than ten times more than what you suggest. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org writes: no need to get upset. you asked where i found the information regarding the wear impact of spinning down disks and i gave you the answer. I am upset by your claim that doing spin downs upon reboot might be even worse than not doing spindowns upon shutdown, because you should know better, and following your advice could damage people's hardware. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com writes: Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: this seems to indicate that spinning down a disk has quite an impact. That's mostly likely a hang-over from older disk technologies when the heads touched the surface on spinning down. They still do, although these days the landing zone has a special surface designed to minimize friction on the head and prevent it from sticking to the surface. In addition, in an emergency unload (when power is lost while the disk is still spinning) the heads retract in a violent and uncontrolled manner, which can lead to mechanical damage to the arms. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:35:06 +0200 Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote: Really? That would make the system close to unusable, and the disk's life expectancy would be reduced to a few months; a disk that performs two load / unload cycles per minute on average will need replacing after three to six months. Remember, there was a huge flap a couple of years when Ubuntu shipped with a default timeout of 90 seconds, which is more than ten times more than what you suggest. The Ubuntu issue was what I was thinking of - I got that mixed up with the aggressive power management of the WD EARS drives. -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk writes: The Ubuntu issue was what I was thinking of - I got that mixed up with the aggressive power management of the WD EARS drives. The entire Green series, actually, which includes models such as the EADS, AARS etc., but there's more to them than that - the central feature is their dynamically adjusted rotational speed, which allows them to conserve power without spinning all the way down. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 05:20:54PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk writes: The Ubuntu issue was what I was thinking of - I got that mixed up with the aggressive power management of the WD EARS drives. The entire Green series, actually, which includes models such as the EADS, AARS etc., but there's more to them than that - the central feature is their dynamically adjusted rotational speed, which allows them to conserve power without spinning all the way down. They do not have any dynamically adjusted rotational speed, despite what Western Digitals marketing department would like you to believe. Tests by various reliable review sites have shown that all the Green models examined so far spin at 5400RPM with no variations. (See e.g. http://www.silentpcreview.com/article786-page2.html or http://www.storagereview.com/1000.sr?page=0,0 ) There could be differences in rotational speed between different models (but no such difference has been reported yet), but they all have a fixed RPM. -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On 10/21/10 15:20, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Bruce Cranbr...@cran.org.uk writes: The Ubuntu issue was what I was thinking of - I got that mixed up with the aggressive power management of the WD EARS drives. The entire Green series, actually, which includes models such as the EADS, AARS etc., but there's more to them than that - the central feature is their dynamically adjusted rotational speed, which allows them to conserve power without spinning all the way down. DES Actually, the green series does spin all the way down, well at least the drive I have does. Here is the output from one of my drives, that I do not think has long left to live. === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Model Family: Western Digital Caviar Green family Device Model: WDC WD5000AADS-00M2B0 Serial Number:WD-WMAV51882791 Firmware Version: 01.00A01 User Capacity:500,107,862,016 bytes Device is:In smartctl database [for details use: -P show] ATA Version is: 8 ATA Standard is: Exact ATA specification draft version not indicated Local Time is:Thu Oct 21 23:31:35 2010 BST SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. SMART support is: Enabled SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x002f 200 200 051Pre-fail Always - 0 3 Spin_Up_Time0x0027 111 104 021Pre-fail Always - 7425 4 Start_Stop_Count0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 98 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 200 200 140Pre-fail Always - 0 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x002e 100 253 000Old_age Always - 0 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 093 093 000Old_age Always - 5295 10 Spin_Retry_Count0x0032 100 253 000Old_age Always - 0 11 Calibration_Retry_Count 0x0032 100 253 000Old_age Always - 0 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 96 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 95 193 Load_Cycle_Count0x0032 001 001 000Old_age Always - 781014 194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 120 102 000Old_age Always - 27 196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 0 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 0 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0030 200 200 000Old_age Offline - 0 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count0x0032 200 200 000Old_age Always - 0 200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0008 200 200 000Old_age Offline - 0 The datasheet for these drive http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-701229.pdfhttp://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-701229.pdf says Reliability/Data Integrity Load/unload cycles (3) 300,000 Limited Warranty (years) (4) (3) Controlled unload at ambient condition (4) The term of the limited warranty my vary by region Also http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=5357 (drive has been validated to 1 million load/unload cycles without issue) Im already at 781014 load cycles, yet the drive is only about 7 months old. Doing the math, I am getting a load/unload cycle about every 24.5 seconds Another 2 months and I will be knocking on for 1 million load/unload cycles As DES has already said, for most people the extra load/unload cycles when rebooting a computer will not be an issue at all and is far more desirable than an emergency park when powering down Paul ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu Sep 16 10, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On Thursday 16 September 2010 16:10:22 Oliver Fromme wrote:
Tijl Coosemans wrote:
I would just spin down the disk in case of a halt. An unwanted spin
down is harmless compared to an emergency shutdown and usually the
intention is to power off rather than reboot.
Is it? When I intend to power-off, I use shutdown -p, not
shutdown -h. Quite often (but not always) when I halt a
machine, I'm going to reboot to multi-user, not power off.
Hmm, I suppose support for power off is ubiquitous nowadays. It used to
be that halt meant: bring the system in a state where we can safely cut
the power. In that case it makes sense to let halt spin down the disks.
If you intend to reboot why not explicitly reboot rather than halt?
For example, I use shutdown -h in order to swap disks that
are not hot-swappable, or other kind of hardware work that
can be done while the machine is switched on.
Of course, in that particular case the disk which is about
to be swapped out should be spun down, while the others
should not. But that's not a problem because I can use
atacontrol(8) and camcontrol(8) to spin down a specific
disk drive manually.
Also, to go from single to multi user mode you can just exit(1) the
shell.
Yes, of course, that's a different matter.
I've updated the patch for ada(4). It includes a bug fix
(command1 vs. command2) and uses the howto flags passed to
the shutdown function. Thanks again for pointing these out.
any chances of getting this one committed? although this only works for CAM(4)
and not ATA(4) it seems the patch is doing the right thing:
- only spindown the disk when the system shuts down
- don't spin down hdds, if the user reboots
since there seems no way to distinguish between these two states in ATA(4) it's
probably better to leave it as it is, since doing spin downs upon reboot might
be even worse than not doing spindowns upon shutdown.
cheers.
alex
ps: also: most of the ATA(4) users under HEAD seem to use options ATA_CAM. ;)
Best regards
Oliver
--- ata_da.c.orig 2010-05-23 18:16:33.0 +0200
+++ ata_da.c 2010-09-16 17:21:10.0 +0200
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
#include sys/eventhandler.h
#include sys/malloc.h
#include sys/cons.h
+#include sys/reboot.h
#include geom/geom_disk.h
#endif /* _KERNEL */
@@ -79,7 +80,8 @@
ADA_FLAG_CAN_TRIM = 0x080,
ADA_FLAG_OPEN = 0x100,
ADA_FLAG_SCTX_INIT = 0x200,
- ADA_FLAG_CAN_CFA= 0x400
+ ADA_FLAG_CAN_CFA= 0x400,
+ ADA_FLAG_CAN_POWERMGT = 0x800
} ada_flags;
typedef enum {
@@ -180,6 +182,10 @@
#define ADA_DEFAULT_SEND_ORDERED1
#endif
+#ifndef ADA_DEFAULT_SPINDOWN_SHUTDOWN
+#define ADA_DEFAULT_SPINDOWN_SHUTDOWN 1
+#endif
+
/*
* Most platforms map firmware geometry to actual, but some don't. If
* not overridden, default to nothing.
@@ -191,6 +197,7 @@
static int ada_retry_count = ADA_DEFAULT_RETRY;
static int ada_default_timeout = ADA_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
static int ada_send_ordered = ADA_DEFAULT_SEND_ORDERED;
+static int ada_spindown_shutdown = ADA_DEFAULT_SPINDOWN_SHUTDOWN;
SYSCTL_NODE(_kern_cam, OID_AUTO, ada, CTLFLAG_RD, 0,
CAM Direct Access Disk driver);
@@ -203,6 +210,9 @@
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_cam_ada, OID_AUTO, ada_send_ordered, CTLFLAG_RW,
ada_send_ordered, 0, Send Ordered Tags);
TUNABLE_INT(kern.cam.ada.ada_send_ordered, ada_send_ordered);
+SYSCTL_INT(_kern_cam_ada, OID_AUTO, spindown_shutdown, CTLFLAG_RW,
+ ada_spindown_shutdown, 0, Spin down upon shutdown);
+TUNABLE_INT(kern.cam.ada.spindown_shutdown, ada_spindown_shutdown);
/*
* ADA_ORDEREDTAG_INTERVAL determines how often, relative
@@ -665,6 +675,8 @@
softc-flags |= ADA_FLAG_CAN_48BIT;
if (cgd-ident_data.support.command2 ATA_SUPPORT_FLUSHCACHE)
softc-flags |= ADA_FLAG_CAN_FLUSHCACHE;
+ if (cgd-ident_data.support.command1 ATA_SUPPORT_POWERMGT)
+ softc-flags |= ADA_FLAG_CAN_POWERMGT;
if (cgd-ident_data.satacapabilities ATA_SUPPORT_NCQ
cgd-inq_flags SID_CmdQue)
softc-flags |= ADA_FLAG_CAN_NCQ;
@@ -1222,6 +1234,58 @@
/*getcount_only*/0);
cam_periph_unlock(periph);
}
+
+ if (ada_spindown_shutdown == 0 ||
+ (howto (RB_HALT | RB_POWEROFF)) == 0)
+ return;
+
+ DELAY(50);
+
+ TAILQ_FOREACH(periph, adadriver.units, unit_links) {
+ union ccb ccb;
+
+ /* If we paniced with lock held - not recurse here. */
+ if (cam_periph_owned(periph))
+ continue;
+ cam_periph_lock(periph);
+ softc = (struct ada_softc *)periph-softc;
+ /*
+ * We only
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Garrett Cooper gcoo...@freebsd.org writes: Agreed. Spinning down at reboot isn't smart and seems like a good way to kill a disk quicker. *not* spinning down at halt is far worse. Most modern disks are rated for hundreds of thousands of load-unload cycles, but far fewer emergency unloads (which is what happens when the drive loses power while still spinning). DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Alexander Best wrote: On Wed Sep 15 10, Oliver Fromme wrote: Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: [...] 8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRENT, anyway. He was kind enough to look at my event handler. My understanding is that he is looking at implementing the head parking/standby mechanism in that new code. The patch below will work with the new CAM ATA driver (i.e. ada(4) disks). It adds a sysctl, so you can switch the spin-down off if you're going to just reboot: # sysctl kern.cam.ada.spindown_shutdown=0 i haven't tested your patch yet, but i don't think deciding whether to spin down the hdd should be decided merely from the sysctl value. It was the most simple and least intrusive way to introduce some means to switch it on and off. Of course there might be better ways to do it. You're welcome to submit your own patch. the hdd should spindown when a shutdown has been issued and not spindown, if a reboot has been issued. Right. That's why my shutdown wrapper script sets the sysctl to 0 when the -r option is present (I've got that wrapper script for ages, for different reasons). Also, there are cases where it is completely impossible to decide automatically whether the disks should be spun down or not. For example, if the admin issues a shutdown -h (halt), there's no way for the OS to know in advance whether the admin is going to switch the machine off or reboot to multi-user. So there must be a way for the user to forcibly enable/disable the spindown feature. I think a sysctl is the most appropriate way to do that, isn't it? Actually, my plan is to have a mask of two bits for the sysctl (the default value would be 3): - bit 0: enable (1) or disable (0) spindown - bit 1: automatic (1) or manual (0) setting With the default setting (i.e. bit 1 == 1), at shutdown time some facility would look at the reboot(2) howto flags and then set bit 0 to either 0 or 1. There are several ways where to handle that. For example, init(8) could be modified to pass the howto value to rc.shutdown (which could be useful for other purposes, too). Then a standard rc.d script could handle the spindown sysctl. The advantage of that solution would be maximum flexibility, because the actual logic is implemented in an rc.d script. deciding whether freebsd reboots or shuts down cannot be done from a script, since users might use the reboot or halt commands in which case (if i'm not mistaken) all shutdown scripts get skipped. Right, which is why it is a rather bad idea to use halt(8) or reboot(8), except in an emergency. Actually I think the manpages and handbook should strongly discourage it, and recommend to use shutdown(8) or init(8) instead, both of which send a signal to PID 1 by default, so rc.shutdown is executed properly. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution. -- Robert Sewell ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thursday 16 September 2010 10:41:07 Oliver Fromme wrote: Alexander Best wrote: On Wed Sep 15 10, Oliver Fromme wrote: The patch below will work with the new CAM ATA driver (i.e. ada(4) disks). It adds a sysctl, so you can switch the spin-down off if you're going to just reboot: # sysctl kern.cam.ada.spindown_shutdown=0 the hdd should spindown when a shutdown has been issued and not spindown, if a reboot has been issued. Right. That's why my shutdown wrapper script sets the sysctl to 0 when the -r option is present (I've got that wrapper script for ages, for different reasons). Also, there are cases where it is completely impossible to decide automatically whether the disks should be spun down or not. For example, if the admin issues a shutdown -h (halt), there's no way for the OS to know in advance whether the admin is going to switch the machine off or reboot to multi-user. So there must be a way for the user to forcibly enable/disable the spindown feature. I think a sysctl is the most appropriate way to do that, isn't it? I would just spin down the disk in case of a halt. An unwanted spin down is harmless compared to an emergency shutdown and usually the intention is to power off rather than reboot. Part of your patch modifies ada_shutdown. That function already gets the reboot(2) howto flags passed to it, so you could test for (howto (RB_HALT | RB_POWEROFF)) != 0 before issuing the STANDBY command. There's no need to make this more complicated with a sysctl that can override this in my opinion. Also command2 should be command1 in this line: + if (cgd-ident_data.support.command2 ATA_SUPPORT_POWERMGT) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Tijl Coosemans wrote: On Thursday 16 September 2010 10:41:07 Oliver Fromme wrote: Also, there are cases where it is completely impossible to decide automatically whether the disks should be spun down or not. For example, if the admin issues a shutdown -h (halt), there's no way for the OS to know in advance whether the admin is going to switch the machine off or reboot to multi-user. So there must be a way for the user to forcibly enable/disable the spindown feature. I think a sysctl is the most appropriate way to do that, isn't it? I would just spin down the disk in case of a halt. An unwanted spin down is harmless compared to an emergency shutdown and usually the intention is to power off rather than reboot. Is it? When I intend to power-off, I use shutdown -p, not shutdown -h. Quite often (but not always) when I halt a machine, I'm going to reboot to multi-user, not power off. In that case I certainly wouldn't want to spin the drives down and have them spun up immediately afterwards. I don't think that weartear caused by that procedure is completely insignificant (although it's certainly less of a problem than emergency unloads). For that reason I definitely want to have a way to disable the spindown function manually. Part of your patch modifies ada_shutdown. That function already gets the reboot(2) howto flags passed to it, so you could test for (howto (RB_HALT | RB_POWEROFF)) != 0 before issuing the STANDBY command. Right, good point. I didn't notice because the shutdown function in ad(4) doesn't get the howto flag, so I assumed (without checking) that ada(4) doesn't get it either. There's no need to make this more complicated with a sysctl that can override this in my opinion. I'm afraid I have to disagree (see above). Apart from that, there's nothing complicated at all about a sysctl. Also command2 should be command1 in this line: + if (cgd-ident_data.support.command2 ATA_SUPPORT_POWERMGT) Oops ... You're right. Thanks for pointing that out. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd I made up the term 'object-oriented', and I can tell you I didn't have C++ in mind. -- Alan Kay, OOPSLA '97 ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Alexander Best wrote: On Wed Sep 15 10, Oliver Fromme wrote: Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: [...] 8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRENT, anyway. He was kind enough to look at my event handler. My understanding is that he is looking at implementing the head parking/standby mechanism in that new code. The patch below will work with the new CAM ATA driver (i.e. ada(4) disks). It adds a sysctl, so you can switch the spin-down off if you're going to just reboot: # sysctl kern.cam.ada.spindown_shutdown=0 i haven't tested your patch yet, but i don't think deciding whether to spin down the hdd should be decided merely from the sysctl value. the hdd should spindown when a shutdown has been issued and not spindown, if a reboot has been issued. It's been a while, but the problem I found when comparing the NetBSD code was that there didn't appear to be a way to tell from within the FreeBSD driver whether it was a shutdown or reboot. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On 09/16/10 09:42, Warren Block wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Alexander Best wrote: On Wed Sep 15 10, Oliver Fromme wrote: Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: [...] 8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRENT, anyway. He was kind enough to look at my event handler. My understanding is that he is looking at implementing the head parking/standby mechanism in that new code. The patch below will work with the new CAM ATA driver (i.e. ada(4) disks). It adds a sysctl, so you can switch the spin-down off if you're going to just reboot: # sysctl kern.cam.ada.spindown_shutdown=0 i haven't tested your patch yet, but i don't think deciding whether to spin down the hdd should be decided merely from the sysctl value. the hdd should spindown when a shutdown has been issued and not spindown, if a reboot has been issued. It's been a while, but the problem I found when comparing the NetBSD code was that there didn't appear to be a way to tell from within the FreeBSD driver whether it was a shutdown or reboot. Register a shutdown event handler? The second argument can be tested against RB_HALT to determine what is happening. -Nathan ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thursday 16 September 2010 16:10:22 Oliver Fromme wrote: Tijl Coosemans wrote: I would just spin down the disk in case of a halt. An unwanted spin down is harmless compared to an emergency shutdown and usually the intention is to power off rather than reboot. Is it? When I intend to power-off, I use shutdown -p, not shutdown -h. Quite often (but not always) when I halt a machine, I'm going to reboot to multi-user, not power off. Hmm, I suppose support for power off is ubiquitous nowadays. It used to be that halt meant: bring the system in a state where we can safely cut the power. In that case it makes sense to let halt spin down the disks. If you intend to reboot why not explicitly reboot rather than halt? Also, to go from single to multi user mode you can just exit(1) the shell. In that case I certainly wouldn't want to spin the drives down and have them spun up immediately afterwards. I don't think that weartear caused by that procedure is completely insignificant (although it's certainly less of a problem than emergency unloads). For that reason I definitely want to have a way to disable the spindown function manually. Ok, I'm soft on the sysctl really, it wouldn't hurt anyone. Although, if the intention is to just override the default behaviour at the time of shutdown you might as well just add an option to halt(8). A don't spin down disks option would fit in with the other options there. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On Thursday 16 September 2010 16:10:22 Oliver Fromme wrote:
Tijl Coosemans wrote:
I would just spin down the disk in case of a halt. An unwanted spin
down is harmless compared to an emergency shutdown and usually the
intention is to power off rather than reboot.
Is it? When I intend to power-off, I use shutdown -p, not
shutdown -h. Quite often (but not always) when I halt a
machine, I'm going to reboot to multi-user, not power off.
Hmm, I suppose support for power off is ubiquitous nowadays. It used to
be that halt meant: bring the system in a state where we can safely cut
the power. In that case it makes sense to let halt spin down the disks.
If you intend to reboot why not explicitly reboot rather than halt?
For example, I use shutdown -h in order to swap disks that
are not hot-swappable, or other kind of hardware work that
can be done while the machine is switched on.
Of course, in that particular case the disk which is about
to be swapped out should be spun down, while the others
should not. But that's not a problem because I can use
atacontrol(8) and camcontrol(8) to spin down a specific
disk drive manually.
Also, to go from single to multi user mode you can just exit(1) the
shell.
Yes, of course, that's a different matter.
I've updated the patch for ada(4). It includes a bug fix
(command1 vs. command2) and uses the howto flags passed to
the shutdown function. Thanks again for pointing these out.
Best regards
Oliver
--- ata_da.c.orig 2010-05-23 18:16:33.0 +0200
+++ ata_da.c2010-09-16 17:21:10.0 +0200
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
#include sys/eventhandler.h
#include sys/malloc.h
#include sys/cons.h
+#include sys/reboot.h
#include geom/geom_disk.h
#endif /* _KERNEL */
@@ -79,7 +80,8 @@
ADA_FLAG_CAN_TRIM = 0x080,
ADA_FLAG_OPEN = 0x100,
ADA_FLAG_SCTX_INIT = 0x200,
- ADA_FLAG_CAN_CFA= 0x400
+ ADA_FLAG_CAN_CFA= 0x400,
+ ADA_FLAG_CAN_POWERMGT = 0x800
} ada_flags;
typedef enum {
@@ -180,6 +182,10 @@
#defineADA_DEFAULT_SEND_ORDERED1
#endif
+#ifndefADA_DEFAULT_SPINDOWN_SHUTDOWN
+#defineADA_DEFAULT_SPINDOWN_SHUTDOWN 1
+#endif
+
/*
* Most platforms map firmware geometry to actual, but some don't. If
* not overridden, default to nothing.
@@ -191,6 +197,7 @@
static int ada_retry_count = ADA_DEFAULT_RETRY;
static int ada_default_timeout = ADA_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
static int ada_send_ordered = ADA_DEFAULT_SEND_ORDERED;
+static int ada_spindown_shutdown = ADA_DEFAULT_SPINDOWN_SHUTDOWN;
SYSCTL_NODE(_kern_cam, OID_AUTO, ada, CTLFLAG_RD, 0,
CAM Direct Access Disk driver);
@@ -203,6 +210,9 @@
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_cam_ada, OID_AUTO, ada_send_ordered, CTLFLAG_RW,
ada_send_ordered, 0, Send Ordered Tags);
TUNABLE_INT(kern.cam.ada.ada_send_ordered, ada_send_ordered);
+SYSCTL_INT(_kern_cam_ada, OID_AUTO, spindown_shutdown, CTLFLAG_RW,
+ ada_spindown_shutdown, 0, Spin down upon shutdown);
+TUNABLE_INT(kern.cam.ada.spindown_shutdown, ada_spindown_shutdown);
/*
* ADA_ORDEREDTAG_INTERVAL determines how often, relative
@@ -665,6 +675,8 @@
softc-flags |= ADA_FLAG_CAN_48BIT;
if (cgd-ident_data.support.command2 ATA_SUPPORT_FLUSHCACHE)
softc-flags |= ADA_FLAG_CAN_FLUSHCACHE;
+ if (cgd-ident_data.support.command1 ATA_SUPPORT_POWERMGT)
+ softc-flags |= ADA_FLAG_CAN_POWERMGT;
if (cgd-ident_data.satacapabilities ATA_SUPPORT_NCQ
cgd-inq_flags SID_CmdQue)
softc-flags |= ADA_FLAG_CAN_NCQ;
@@ -1222,6 +1234,58 @@
/*getcount_only*/0);
cam_periph_unlock(periph);
}
+
+ if (ada_spindown_shutdown == 0 ||
+ (howto (RB_HALT | RB_POWEROFF)) == 0)
+ return;
+
+ DELAY(50);
+
+ TAILQ_FOREACH(periph, adadriver.units, unit_links) {
+ union ccb ccb;
+
+ /* If we paniced with lock held - not recurse here. */
+ if (cam_periph_owned(periph))
+ continue;
+ cam_periph_lock(periph);
+ softc = (struct ada_softc *)periph-softc;
+ /*
+* We only spin-down the drive if it is capable of it..
+*/
+ if ((softc-flags ADA_FLAG_CAN_POWERMGT) == 0) {
+ cam_periph_unlock(periph);
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ /* XXX Hide this behind bootverbose? */
+ xpt_print(periph-path, spin-down\n);
+
+ xpt_setup_ccb(ccb.ccb_h, periph-path, CAM_PRIORITY_NORMAL);
+
+ ccb.ccb_h.ccb_state = ADA_CCB_DUMP;
+ cam_fill_ataio(ccb.ataio,
+ 1,
+ adadone,
+
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:17:52 +0200 Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote: Garrett Cooper gcoo...@freebsd.org writes: Agreed. Spinning down at reboot isn't smart and seems like a good way to kill a disk quicker. *not* spinning down at halt is far worse. Most modern disks are rated for hundreds of thousands of load-unload cycles, but far fewer emergency unloads (which is what happens when the drive loses power while still spinning). As I understand it wear from spinning-down used to come from the head actually scraping the disk surface as it lost lift, parking placed the head on a disposable area, but modern drives take the head off the disk altogether. When Hitachi was specifying 300,000 unloads, they said that in testing the drives were still working at 1,000,000, someone quoted 600,000 as the current spec. At these levels you can be spinning the drives down and up ever few minutes for the normal lifetime of the drive. Even on very old drives I doubt reboot are much of a problem, they're rare on servers. On laptops and desktops they're rare compared to shutdowns and suspends. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Oliver Fromme wrote: I've updated the patch for ada(4). It includes a bug fix (command1 vs. command2) and uses the howto flags passed to the shutdown function. Thanks again for pointing these out. Works perfectly on a system here. Thanks! ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote:
[...]
8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which
will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRENT, anyway. He was
kind enough to look at my event handler. My understanding is that he is
looking at implementing the head parking/standby mechanism in that new
code.
The patch below will work with the new CAM ATA driver
(i.e. ada(4) disks). It adds a sysctl, so you can switch
the spin-down off if you're going to just reboot:
# sysctl kern.cam.ada.spindown_shutdown=0
This patch applies to stable/8, but I think it should
work with current, too (I haven't tried because I don't
have a machine running HEAD that has ada(4) disks).
Best regards
Oliver
--- ata_da.c.orig 2010-05-23 18:16:33.0 +0200
+++ ata_da.c2010-09-15 22:48:03.0 +0200
@@ -79,7 +79,8 @@
ADA_FLAG_CAN_TRIM = 0x080,
ADA_FLAG_OPEN = 0x100,
ADA_FLAG_SCTX_INIT = 0x200,
- ADA_FLAG_CAN_CFA= 0x400
+ ADA_FLAG_CAN_CFA= 0x400,
+ ADA_FLAG_CAN_POWERMGT = 0x800
} ada_flags;
typedef enum {
@@ -180,6 +181,10 @@
#defineADA_DEFAULT_SEND_ORDERED1
#endif
+#ifndefADA_DEFAULT_SPINDOWN_SHUTDOWN
+#defineADA_DEFAULT_SPINDOWN_SHUTDOWN 1
+#endif
+
/*
* Most platforms map firmware geometry to actual, but some don't. If
* not overridden, default to nothing.
@@ -191,6 +196,7 @@
static int ada_retry_count = ADA_DEFAULT_RETRY;
static int ada_default_timeout = ADA_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
static int ada_send_ordered = ADA_DEFAULT_SEND_ORDERED;
+static int ada_spindown_shutdown = ADA_DEFAULT_SPINDOWN_SHUTDOWN;
SYSCTL_NODE(_kern_cam, OID_AUTO, ada, CTLFLAG_RD, 0,
CAM Direct Access Disk driver);
@@ -203,6 +209,9 @@
SYSCTL_INT(_kern_cam_ada, OID_AUTO, ada_send_ordered, CTLFLAG_RW,
ada_send_ordered, 0, Send Ordered Tags);
TUNABLE_INT(kern.cam.ada.ada_send_ordered, ada_send_ordered);
+SYSCTL_INT(_kern_cam_ada, OID_AUTO, spindown_shutdown, CTLFLAG_RW,
+ ada_spindown_shutdown, 0, Spin down upon shutdown);
+TUNABLE_INT(kern.cam.ada.spindown_shutdown, ada_spindown_shutdown);
/*
* ADA_ORDEREDTAG_INTERVAL determines how often, relative
@@ -665,6 +674,8 @@
softc-flags |= ADA_FLAG_CAN_48BIT;
if (cgd-ident_data.support.command2 ATA_SUPPORT_FLUSHCACHE)
softc-flags |= ADA_FLAG_CAN_FLUSHCACHE;
+ if (cgd-ident_data.support.command2 ATA_SUPPORT_POWERMGT)
+ softc-flags |= ADA_FLAG_CAN_POWERMGT;
if (cgd-ident_data.satacapabilities ATA_SUPPORT_NCQ
cgd-inq_flags SID_CmdQue)
softc-flags |= ADA_FLAG_CAN_NCQ;
@@ -1222,6 +1233,57 @@
/*getcount_only*/0);
cam_periph_unlock(periph);
}
+
+ if (ada_spindown_shutdown == 0)
+ return;
+
+ DELAY(50);
+
+ TAILQ_FOREACH(periph, adadriver.units, unit_links) {
+ union ccb ccb;
+
+ /* If we paniced with lock held - not recurse here. */
+ if (cam_periph_owned(periph))
+ continue;
+ cam_periph_lock(periph);
+ softc = (struct ada_softc *)periph-softc;
+ /*
+* We only spin-down the drive if it is capable of it..
+*/
+ if ((softc-flags ADA_FLAG_CAN_POWERMGT) == 0) {
+ cam_periph_unlock(periph);
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ /* XXX Hide this behind bootverbose? */
+ xpt_print(periph-path, spin-down\n);
+
+ xpt_setup_ccb(ccb.ccb_h, periph-path, CAM_PRIORITY_NORMAL);
+
+ ccb.ccb_h.ccb_state = ADA_CCB_DUMP;
+ cam_fill_ataio(ccb.ataio,
+ 1,
+ adadone,
+ CAM_DIR_NONE,
+ 0,
+ NULL,
+ 0,
+ ada_default_timeout*1000);
+
+ ata_28bit_cmd(ccb.ataio, ATA_STANDBY_IMMEDIATE, 0, 0, 0);
+ xpt_polled_action(ccb);
+
+ if ((ccb.ccb_h.status CAM_STATUS_MASK) != CAM_REQ_CMP)
+ xpt_print(periph-path, Spin-down disk failed\n);
+
+ if ((ccb.ccb_h.status CAM_DEV_QFRZN) != 0)
+ cam_release_devq(ccb.ccb_h.path,
+/*relsim_flags*/0,
+/*reduction*/0,
+/*timeout*/0,
+/*getcount_only*/0);
+ cam_periph_unlock(periph);
+ }
}
#endif /* _KERNEL */
--
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M.
Handelsregister:
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Wed Sep 15 10, Oliver Fromme wrote: Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: [...] 8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRENT, anyway. He was kind enough to look at my event handler. My understanding is that he is looking at implementing the head parking/standby mechanism in that new code. The patch below will work with the new CAM ATA driver (i.e. ada(4) disks). It adds a sysctl, so you can switch the spin-down off if you're going to just reboot: # sysctl kern.cam.ada.spindown_shutdown=0 i haven't tested your patch yet, but i don't think deciding whether to spin down the hdd should be decided merely from the sysctl value. the hdd should spindown when a shutdown has been issued and not spindown, if a reboot has been issued. either people have the sysctl set to 1 in which case a reboot will cause a spindown (which isn't healthy for the hdd) ...or people will set it to 0 in which case everything remains just the way it is. imo the sysctl should stay, but shuld have a different meaning. if it is set to 1 (which should be the default) a shutdown will issue a spindown; a reboot won't. if for some reason people want back the current behavior (no spindown even during a shutdown) they need to set it to 0. deciding whether freebsd reboots or shuts down cannot be done from a script, since users might use the reboot or halt commands in which case (if i'm not mistaken) all shutdown scripts get skipped. cheers. alex This patch applies to stable/8, but I think it should work with current, too (I haven't tried because I don't have a machine running HEAD that has ada(4) disks). Best regards Oliver snip -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Python is executable pseudocode. Perl is executable line noise. -- a13x ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote: On Wed Sep 15 10, Oliver Fromme wrote: Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: [...] 8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRENT, anyway. He was kind enough to look at my event handler. My understanding is that he is looking at implementing the head parking/standby mechanism in that new code. The patch below will work with the new CAM ATA driver (i.e. ada(4) disks). It adds a sysctl, so you can switch the spin-down off if you're going to just reboot: # sysctl kern.cam.ada.spindown_shutdown=0 i haven't tested your patch yet, but i don't think deciding whether to spin down the hdd should be decided merely from the sysctl value. the hdd should spindown when a shutdown has been issued and not spindown, if a reboot has been issued. either people have the sysctl set to 1 in which case a reboot will cause a spindown (which isn't healthy for the hdd) ...or people will set it to 0 in which case everything remains just the way it is. imo the sysctl should stay, but shuld have a different meaning. if it is set to 1 (which should be the default) a shutdown will issue a spindown; a reboot won't. if for some reason people want back the current behavior (no spindown even during a shutdown) they need to set it to 0. Agreed. Spinning down at reboot isn't smart and seems like a good way to kill a disk quicker. deciding whether freebsd reboots or shuts down cannot be done from a script, since users might use the reboot or halt commands in which case (if i'm not mistaken) all shutdown scripts get skipped. I'm not so sure of that statement, in particular because halt(8), reboot(8), and shutdown(8) send SIGTERM to processes (unless you use halt -q / reboot -q ... there might be some other scenarios I'm not envisioning here). Thanks, -Garrett ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Summary: Re: Spin down HDD after disk sync or before power off
Just wanted to followup with a summary before all vestiges of what I learned evaporate from my memory. My apologies for the lateness. 1. Existing FreeBSD ata-disk code does not explicitly park the hard drive heads on shutdown. So the power loss causes an emergency park, which sounds bad and is bad for the heads. 2. There are a limited number of powerup/powerdown or maybe spinup/spindown cycles for a drive. Not sure what causes the wear. 3. FreeBSD doesn't park heads at reboot, either, but that's good because of #2. 4. FreeBSD's suspend code does call STANDBY_IMMEDIATE to park heads. 5. I couldn't tell if the STANDBY_IMMEDIATE in a reboot actually spun the drive down. It may be that the hardware reset happens so quickly after the standby that it doesn't matter. Or maybe it brakes very quietly. Possibly different brands do different things. I can think of ways to check, like measuring motor current, but don't have the equipment to try that. 6. Ond?ej Majerech suggested checking NetBSD's method of spinning the drive down. I did, and they have a direct way of telling the difference between reboot and shutdown, somewhat differently from FreeBSD. 7. I actually waded hip-deep through magic C code and made a powerdown event handler for ata-disk.c. It compiled and even seemed to work, although I don't trust it. 8. Alexander Motin has an updated CAM version of the ATA system which will eventually replace the existing one. In -CURRENT, anyway. He was kind enough to look at my event handler. My understanding is that he is looking at implementing the head parking/standby mechanism in that new code. Conclusions: If you rarely power down a system with FreeBSD, it may not matter, and reboots with the existing code should not be a problem. If you power down a system from FreeBSD often, the patch in http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=233916+0+archive/2010/freebsd-hackers/20100131.freebsd-hackers is still the lowest-impact version, although it calls STANDBY_IMMEDIATE for both reboot and shutdown. I don't have evidence either way as to whether the standby followed by a reboot causes as much wear as a cold spinup/spindown cycle, or whether that is more of a problem than emergency head parks. -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
