From nobody Thu Jul 13 19:14:20 2023 X-Original-To: scsi@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4R246j2Hqrz4mgYj for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 19:14:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1D4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4R246h32khz4PSg for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 19:14:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=bsdimp-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com header.s=20221208 header.b=MvNMH3eA; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of wlosh@bsdimp.com has no SPF policy when checking 2a00:1450:4864:20::136) smtp.mailfrom=wlosh@bsdimp.com; dmarc=none Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-4fb7b2e3dacso1959295e87.0 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:14:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1689275671; x=1691867671; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ipzusbKCjrDC33CNQKHma4ECs1xEzioMNlWZSaTapDw=; b=MvNMH3eAu4aKz405vxU5hjkzbhxsx4Y6oclGPZv868aXcRIxLfMwTs6q9bJNi9lU6v vPI2bs7Z/i8bTNuIVwsLdtuCVsIdzx+O9ShR3TbPZAkIeOEXCDEwmp4eyV8WIgphuMzu KHxcCFq9DxZSwxL9o4sgGPqFwED8C8WUDvpv+Sl5LQM5+I4MIhkQ/vewbMpfEUDvsrrB UCDH0iXgZzYIOyYRtBy/Gha/6duphsSkU8hTHVkW/KbgL/skQ84l+uH/3g/BsW5KJ1r7 IT603j8MSECye5cMJ7bTpzn8HaRNMZbyIT87vUJ1UzWxu9aK3ly0zK3vV1k6N3BtVyGo U5rg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1689275671; x=1691867671; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ipzusbKCjrDC33CNQKHma4ECs1xEzioMNlWZSaTapDw=; b=PqbWsLs34v78xVWt2R+JyNQLnChxstllFJio1DfUiGeggILhS/Ko0Lrme398kMAnBw CF34zlo9W3bsNayWA8Q/dzdyD15jv7yZ30SBTMiUe4Lqr4k566LBqY4uibtEZp+CdA74 MG1QY5KkaqQMbLx6lAWA9qdrlqhEI1s77opOGQZwkNYKXXuc+j5GOuJKy8cBdZA2dbH7 FwU6cLQRCBj6wjggM2o4KBqyRUODCWuv54FD3Nex9PJRyywKtjKxmu4zmaPeoIE5W7G4 Eois30F0A3nNC4/hhhmvTVMGp4OwGPzplCMgss/dF6KFx7QbUbKbYVJB2rmYO6YqFPpn VeEA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLYKnBMcEFE5JE02teQPRbqaNDs3dKrbFAcZE4KcY031n6UogVFV Sj/rJLBM8htv7AeGlB+OG2DU2sPCNM584JO0Qef+YBPqxOruD0mv X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlEjrB8cInRRGpj4jPglrjLv0c3yprcaJsd4CHFyPYcX51/18No+kBEh+nNKC222+ypFGV30vGsDdM48lmndVs4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2313:b0:4f9:51b7:a19c with SMTP id o19-20020a056512231300b004f951b7a19cmr2271819lfu.19.1689275671126; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:14:31 -0700 (PDT) List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-scsi List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:14:20 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: ASC/ASCQ Review To: scsi@freebsd.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004e42d20600632415" X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.96 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.96)[-0.964]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[bsdimp-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com:s=20221208]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2a00:1450:4864:20::136:from]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[scsi@freebsd.org]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2a00:1450::/32, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[bsdimp.com]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[bsdimp-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com:+]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[scsi@freebsd.org]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4R246h32khz4PSg X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N --0000000000004e42d20600632415 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Greetings, i've been looking closely at failed drives for $WORK lately. I've noticed that a lot of errors that kinda sound like fatal errors have SS_RDEF set on them. What's the process for evaluating whether those error codes are worth retrying. There are several errors that we seem to be seeing (preliminary read of the data) before the drive gives up the ghost altogether. For those cases, I'd like to post more specific lists. Should I do that here? Independent of that, I may want to have a more aggressive 'fail fast' policy than is appropriate for my work load (we have a lot of data that's a copy of a copy of a copy, so if we lose it, we don't care: we'll just delete any files we can't read and get on with life, though I know others will have a more conservative attitude towards data that might be precious and unique). I can set the number of retries lower, I can do some other hacks for disks that tell the disk to fail faster, but I think part of the solution is going to have to be failing for some sense-code/ASC/ASCQ tuples that we don't want to fail in upstream or the general case. I was thinking of identifying those and creating a 'global quirk table' that gets applied after the drive-specific quirk table that would let $WORK override the defaults, while letting others keep the current behavior. IMHO, it would be better to have these separate rather than in the global data for tracking upstream... Is that clear, or should I give concrete examples? Comments? Warner --0000000000004e42d20600632415 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings,

i've been looking closel= y at failed drives for $WORK lately. I've noticed that a lot of errors = that kinda sound like fatal errors have SS_RDEF set on them.

=
What's the process for evaluating=C2=A0whether those error c= odes are worth retrying.=C2=A0There are several errors that we seem to be s= eeing (preliminary read of the data) before the drive gives up the ghost al= together. For those cases, I'd like to post more specific lists. Should= I do that here?

Independent of that, I may want t= o have a more aggressive=C2=A0'fail fast' policy than is appropriat= e for my work load (we have a lot of data that's a copy of a copy of a = copy, so if we lose it, we don't care: we'll just delete any files = we can't read and get on with life, though I know others will have a mo= re conservative attitude towards data that might be precious and unique). I= can set the number of retries lower, I can do some other hacks for disks t= hat tell the disk to fail faster, but I think part of the solution is going= to have to be failing for some sense-code/ASC/ASCQ tuples that we don'= t want to fail in upstream or the general case. I was thinking of identifyi= ng those and creating a 'global quirk table' that gets applied afte= r the drive-specific quirk table that would let $WORK override the defaults= , while letting others keep the current behavior. IMHO, it would be better = to have these separate rather than in the global data for tracking upstream= ...

Is that clear, or should I give concrete examp= les?

Comments?

Warner
--0000000000004e42d20600632415--