Re: BTRFS bad block management. Does it exist?
On 10/14/2018 07:08 PM, waxhead wrote: In case BTRFS fails to WRITE to a disk. What happens? Does the bad area get mapped out somehow? There was a proposed patch, its not convincing because the disks does the bad block relocation part transparently to the host and if disk runs out of reserved list then probably its time to replace the disk as in my experience the disk would have failed for other non-media error before it runs out of the reserved list and where in this case the host performed relocation won't help. Further more being at the file-system level you won't be able to accurately determine whether the block write has failed for the bad media error and not because of the reason of target circuitry fault. Does it try again until it succeed or until it "times out" or reach a threshold counter? Block IO timeout and retry are the properties of the block layer depending on the type of error it should. SD module already does retry of 5 counts (when failfast is not set), it should be tune-able. And I think there was a patch for that in the ML. We had few discussion on the retry part in the past. [1] [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg70240.html https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg71779.html Does it eventually try to write to a different disk (in case of using the raid1/10 profile?) When there is mirror copy it does not go into the RO mode, and it leaves write hole(s) patchy across any transaction as we don't fail the disk at the first failed transaction. That means if a disk is at nth transaction per the super-block, its not guaranteed that all previous transactions have made it to the disk successfully in case of mirror-ed configs. I consider this as a bug. And there is a danger that it may read the junk data, which is hard but not impossible to hit due to our un-reasonable (there is a patch in the ML to address that as well) hard-coded pid-based read-mirror policy. I sent a patch to fail the disk when first write fails so that we know the last good integrity of the FS based on the transaction id. That was a long time back I still believe its important patch. There wasn't enough comments I guess for it go into the next step. The current solution is to replace the offending disk _without_ reading from it, to have a good recovery from the failed disk. As data centers can't relay on admin initiated manual recovery, there is also a patch to do this stuff automatically using the auto-replace feature, patches are in the ML. Again there wasn't enough comments I guess for it go into the next step. Thanks, Anand
Re: BTRFS bad block management. Does it exist?
On 2018-10-14 07:08, waxhead wrote: In case BTRFS fails to WRITE to a disk. What happens? Does the bad area get mapped out somehow? Does it try again until it succeed or until it "times out" or reach a threshold counter? Does it eventually try to write to a different disk (in case of using the raid1/10 profile?) Building on Qu's answer (which is absolutely correct), BTRFS makes the perfectly reasonable assumption that you're not trying to use known bad hardware. It's not alone in this respect either, pretty much every Linux filesystem makes the exact same assumption (and almost all non-Linux ones too), because it really is a perfectly reasonable assumption. The only exception is ext[234], but they only support it statically (you can set the bad block list at mkfs time, but not afterwards, and they don't update it at runtime), and it's a holdover from earlier filesystems which originated at a time when storage was sufficiently expensive _and_ unreliable that you kept using disks until they were essentially completely dead. The reality is that with modern storage hardware, if you have persistently bad sectors the device is either defective (and should be returned under warranty), or it's beyond expected EOL (and should just be replaced). Most people know about SSD's doing block remapping to avoid bad blocks, but hard drives do it to, and they're actually rather good at it. In both cases, enough spare blocks are provided that the device can handle average rates of media errors through the entirety of it's average life expectancy without running out of spare blocks. On top of all of that though, it's fully possible to work around bad blocks in the block layer if you take the time to actually do it. With a bit of reasonably simple math, you can easily set up an LVM volume that actively avoids all the bad blocks on a disk while still fully utilizing the rest of the volume. Similarly, with a bit of work (and a partition table that supports _lots_ of partitions) you can work around bad blocks with an MD concatenated device.
Re: BTRFS bad block management. Does it exist?
On 2018/10/14 下午7:08, waxhead wrote: > In case BTRFS fails to WRITE to a disk. What happens? Normally it should return error when we flush disk. And in that case, error will leads to transaction abort and the fs goes RO to prevent further corruption. > Does the bad area get mapped out somehow? No. > Does it try again until it > succeed or until it "times out" or reach a threshold counter? Unless it's done by block layer, btrfs doesn't try that. > Does it eventually try to write to a different disk (in case of using > the raid1/10 profile?) No. That's not what RAID is designed to do. It's only allowed to have any flush error if using "degraded" mount option and the error is under tolerance. Thanks, Qu signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
BTRFS bad block management. Does it exist?
In case BTRFS fails to WRITE to a disk. What happens? Does the bad area get mapped out somehow? Does it try again until it succeed or until it "times out" or reach a threshold counter? Does it eventually try to write to a different disk (in case of using the raid1/10 profile?)
