[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: swap-on-raidframe vs raidctl -P
Manuel Bouyer writes:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:45:34PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 10:40pm, bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
> > -- Subject: Re: swap-on-raidframe vs raidctl -P
> > | No, but forcibly closing the raid device could solve other problems too,
> > | like (I suspect, I didn't try it) cgd on raid.
> > Not while processes are swapping on it? Are you planning to kill them?
> > Also swap is usually on top [who mounts things on top of swap?], so
> > removing swap before unmounting should work.
> I'm not sure the cgd device gets unconfigured on shutdown, even if it's not
> in use any more. and I'm sure we could find other examples. If we had a way
> to say "there won't be any more I/O anyway so cleanup any raid devices
> (and others that need cleanup) and close them", it'd solve them all.
In the case of "marking a RAID set as clean", there will be I/O to an
underlying component, and that underlying component could be a RAID set.
All that's needed for RAIDframe right now is for raidclose() to get
called... but if there is a way to unscramble this mess with some
sort of alternate solution (e.g. shutdownhooks or whatever) I'm happy
to look at that solution as well..
I think something like this has been proposed before:
foreach mounted filesystem
- attempt to unmount each
foreach configured device
- attempt to unconfigure each unused (unopened) device
if (no mounted filesystems and no configured drives)
- we're done
but it's probably not enough to deal with really 'loopy' cases either..
Main Index |
Thread Index |