[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xen-users] RE: AW: Best way to use iSCSI in domU

  • To: "Ferenc Wagner" <wferi@xxxxxxx>
  • From: Jeff Sturm <jeff.sturm@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:14:37 -0400
  • Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:16:19 -0700
  • List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcnzOH4HTFyxz+ToRQibFeCbCH8zOQAAYcRg
  • Thread-topic: AW: Best way to use iSCSI in domU

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferenc Wagner [mailto:wferi@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 8:55 AM
> To: Jeff Sturm
> Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: AW: Best way to use iSCSI in domU
> Jeff Sturm <jeff.sturm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > We also use tap:sync: to ensure blocks are flushed to the SAN as
> > they are written.  If you have just one dom0 and could tolerate
> > possible data loss, you're probably fine using phy: or tap:aio:
> > instead.
> Doesn't phy: use direct IO (avoiding buffer cache) as well?

Empirically, my guess is "no", or at least that writes are not performed
synchronously.  Our GFS cluster seems stable using tap:sync: as the
backend, whereas it became corrupted on average once a week using phy:.
We have since had 3 weeks of continuous uptime on the cluster.

Frankly, I don't understand the kernel interfaces well enough to say for
certain.  I asked a question about this a few weeks ago on this list,
and didn't receive a reply.  If anyone knows for certain, it would be
good to have confirmation, because I can't completely rule out some
other cause of our fs corruption.


Xen-users mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.