Detect a slow raidz child during reads #16900

don-brady · 2024-12-23T23:39:59Z

Motivation and Context

There is a concern, and has been observed in practice, that a slow disk can bring down the overall read performance of raidz. Currently in ZFS, a slow disk is detected by comparing the disk read latency to a custom threshold value, such as 30 seconds. This can be tuned to a lower threshold but that requires understanding the context in which it will be applied. And hybrid pools can have a wide range of expected disk latencies.

What might be a better approach, is to identify the presence of a slow disk outlier based on its latency distance from the latencies of its peers.  This would offer a more dynamic solution that can adapt to different type of media and workloads.

Description

The solution proposed here comes in two parts

Detecting a persistent read outlier – adapts over time under various factors (workload, environment, etc.)
Placing outlier drive in a sit out period -- the raidz group can use parity to reconstruct the data that was skipped.

Detecting Outliers
The most recent latency value for each child is saved in the vdev_t. Then periodically, the samples from all the children are sorted and a statistical outlier can be detected if present. The code uses a Tukey's fence, with K = 2, for detecting extreme outliers. This rule defines extreme outliers as data points outside the fence of the third quartile plus two times the Interquartile Range (IQR). This range is the distance between the first and third quartile.

Sitting Out
After a vdev has encounter multiple outlier detections (> 50), it is marked for being in a sit out period that by default lasts for 10 minutes.

Each time a slow disk is placed into a sit out period, its vdev_stat.vs_slow_ios count is incremented and a zevent class ereport.fs.zfs.delay is posted.  

The length of the sit out period can be changed using the raid_read_sit_out_secs module parameter.  Setting it to zero disables slow outlier detection.

Sponsored-by: Klara, Inc.
Sponsored-by: Wasabi Technology, Inc.

How Has This Been Tested?

Tested with various configs, including dRAID.

For an extreme example, an HDD was used in an 8 wide SSD raidz2 and it was compared to taking the HDD offline. This was using a fio(1) streaming read workload across 4 threads to 20GB files. Both the record size and IO request size were 1MB.

Original	Offline	Detection
401 secs	54 secs	58 sec
204 IOPS	1521 IOPS	1415 IOPS
204 MiB/s	1521 MiB/s	1415 MiB/s

Also measured the cost over time of vdev_child_slow_outlier() where the statistical analysis occurs (every 20ms).

@vdev_child_slow_outlier_hist[ns]:  
[256, 512)           832 |@                                                   | 
[512, 1K)          14372 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@                             | 
[1K, 2K)           32231 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@| 
[2K, 4K)           23283 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@               | 
[4K, 8K)            7773 |@@@@@@@@@@@@                                        | 
[8K, 16K)           2790 |@@@@                                                | 
[16K, 32K)           411 |                                                    | 
[32K, 64K)           122 |                                                    | 
[64K, 128K)           51 |                                                    | 
[128K, 256K)          26 |                                                    | 
[256K, 512K)           5 |                                                    |

Types of changes

Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Performance enhancement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
Code cleanup (non-breaking change which makes code smaller or more readable)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
Library ABI change (libzfs, libzfs_core, libnvpair, libuutil and libzfsbootenv)
Documentation (a change to man pages or other documentation)

Checklist:

My code follows the OpenZFS code style requirements.
I have updated the documentation accordingly.
I have read the contributing document.
I have added tests to cover my changes.
I have run the ZFS Test Suite with this change applied.
All commit messages are properly formatted and contain Signed-off-by.

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

amotin · 2024-12-26T17:05:06Z

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

+	 */
+	uint64_t two_sectors = 2ULL << zio->io_vd->vdev_top->vdev_ashift;
+	if (zio->io_type == ZIO_TYPE_READ && zio->io_error == 0 &&
+	    zio->io_size >= two_sectors && zio->io_delay != 0) {


Could you explain why do we care about the two sectors (all data columns) here?

Not accounting aggregated ZIOs makes this algorithm even more random that periodic sampling alone would do. With RAIDZ splitting ZIOs between vdevs into smaller ones, they are good candidates for aggregation.

The original thinking was to avoid small-ish metadata reads in the latency samples that were not aggregated

Do we know if in practice this extra filtering is really helpful? If it is, great, let's keep it and add the reasoning about avoiding small-ish metadata reads to the comment. If we can't, perhaps we want to drop this artificial 2 sector limit.

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

amotin · 2024-12-26T17:26:34Z

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

+	latency_sort(lat_data, samples);
+	uint64_t fence = latency_quartiles_fence(lat_data, samples);
+	if (lat_data[samples - 1] > fence) {
+		/*
+		 * Keep track of how many times this child has had
+		 * an outlier read. A disk that persitently has a
+		 * higer than peers outlier count will be considered
+		 * a slow disk.
+		 */
+		atomic_add_64(&svd->vdev_outlier_count, 1);


With small number of children and with only one random sample from each I really doubt this math can be statistically meaningful.

The switch to using a weighted moving average addresses I believe addresses the concern here.

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

tonyhutter · 2024-12-30T23:59:28Z

Initial thoughts

This is going to be really useful on large pools. We often see SCSI disks "lose their mind" for a few minutes in our larger pools, tanking performance. It's nice that this feature will basically read and rebuild the data from parity first rather than attempt to read from the bad disk. I can see us using this in production.

Will disks that are "sitting out" still be read during a scrub?

If a disk is sitting out, and a read is unable to reconstruct from the other "healthy" disks, will ZFS read from the sitting out disk as a last-ditch effort?

Could this work for mirrors as well?

What happens if the algorithm wants to sit out more disks in a raid group than there is parity?

What happens if a pool has dissimilar disks in its raid group? Like, say, 7 NVMe and 1 HDD. Will it sit out the HDD since it will be so much slower than the other drives? That might actually be a nice side effect...

It would be good to see which disks are currently sitting out via a vdev property. I would expect users would want to see this for troubleshooting performance problems and locating sick disks. I can see users wanting to manually set it on sick disks as well:

# Check if /dev/sda is currently being sit out via the algorithm
$ zpool get sitting_out tank L0 sda
NAME                PROPERTY         VALUE   SOURCE
sda                 sitting_out      on      -

# Manually set /dev/sdb to sit out
$ zpool set sitting_out=on tank L0 sdb
$ zpool get sitting_out tank L0 sdb
NAME                PROPERTY       VALUE   SOURCE
sdb                 sitting_out    on      local

You could tell if sitting_out was manually or automatically set by looking at the SOURCE value. If the user manually set the vdev to sit out, we would probably want it to persist that way rather than periodically retesting the vdev's latency.

Alternatively you could name the property penalty_box rather than sitting_out, but the terminology is your call. I'll give you that it's less wordy to say "the disk is sitting out" rather than "the disk is in the penalty box" though. Other ideas: prefer_no_reads, avoid_reads, minimize_reads.

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

don-brady · 2025-01-03T18:49:48Z

Latest changes...

Use weighted moving average for saved read latency values
Refactored vdev_skip_latency_outlier() -- it now only checks state of sit out expiration. Moved sit out state change logic into vdev_child_slow_outlier().
Removed overloading of vdev_stat_lock.
Allow for only one vdev_child_slow_outlier() to run at a time (closed race window).

don-brady · 2025-01-03T19:26:02Z

Will disks that are "sitting out" still be read during a scrub?

Yes. both resilver and scrub reads will not sit out.

Could this work for mirrors as well?

Possibly but that would require a different outlier detection.

What happens if the algorithm wants to sit out more disks in a raid group than there is parity?

Currently one one outlier sit out at a time is allowed.

What happens if a pool has dissimilar disks in its raid group? Like, say, 7 NVMe and 1 HDD. Will it sit out the HDD since it will be so much slower than the other drives? That might actually be a nice side effect...

Yes, it would likely end up sitting out the HDD since it will be an outlier. I did test this exact scenario and could hear the sit out period. 😃

It would be good to see which disks are currently sitting out via a vdev property.

I was using zpool iostat -v to observe that a disk was sitting out. There is also a zevent each time we enter a sit out. It's a slow io event but we could also tag it to indicate that it is also entering a sit out. I could add a read-only vdev property for read sit out. Not sure I would want to make it writable. The design here is meant to be dynamic/adaptive. The admin can still offline a disk.

man/man4/zfs.4

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

behlendorf · 2025-01-04T19:23:30Z

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

+	 */
+	uint64_t two_sectors = 2ULL << zio->io_vd->vdev_top->vdev_ashift;
+	if (zio->io_type == ZIO_TYPE_READ && zio->io_error == 0 &&
+	    zio->io_size >= two_sectors && zio->io_delay != 0) {


Do we know if in practice this extra filtering is really helpful? If it is, great, let's keep it and add the reasoning about avoiding small-ish metadata reads to the comment. If we can't, perhaps we want to drop this artificial 2 sector limit.

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

behlendorf · 2025-01-04T19:49:30Z

I could add a read-only vdev property for read sit out. Not sure I would want to make it writable. The design here is meant to be dynamic/adaptive. The admin can still offline a disk.

A read-only vdev property seems like the way to go. That would provide some additional visibility in to when a drive is sitting out. I don't think we'd want to make it writable for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

don-brady · 2025-01-05T02:18:39Z

Added read-only VDEV_PROP_SIT_OUT_READS property.

don-brady · 2025-01-06T21:36:02Z

Some recent feedback changes. Rebased to latest master and squash commits.

tonyhutter · 2025-01-07T01:57:55Z

I gave this a try today using the script below. I was able to sit out the disk I delayed, but I wasn't able to remove the sit-out state afterwards. Maybe I need non-ARC reads to trigger the sitting-out -> not-sitting-out logic?

#!/bin/bash
# Run this from a zfs git workspace
#

# shorten sit out period for testing
sudo bash -c 'echo 5 > /sys/module/zfs/parameters/raidz_read_sit_out_secs'

truncate -s 200M file{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
sudo ./zpool create tank raidz2 `pwd`/file{0..9}
sudo dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1M count=100 of=/tank/bigfile
sudo ./zpool export tank
sudo ./zpool import -d . tank

echo "Initial state"
# We should be sitting out
sudo ./zpool get -Hp sit_out_reads tank `pwd`/file9

# Add 500ms delay on last disk
sudo ./zinject -d `pwd`/file9 -D500:1 tank

# Do some reads
sudo dd if=/tank/bigfile of=/dev/null bs=4k 

echo "Should be sitting out"
# We should be sitting out
sudo ./zpool get -Hp sit_out_reads tank `pwd`/file9

# Clear fault injection
sudo ./zinject -c all

echo "wait for us to stop sitting out part 1"

sleep 6

# Are we still sitting out?
sudo ./zpool get -Hp sit_out_reads tank `pwd`/file9

# Do some more reads to see if we can trigger the vdev to stop sitting out
sudo dd if=/tank/bigfile of=/dev/null bs=4k 

echo "wait for us to stop sitting out part 2"
sleep 6

# Are we still sitting out?
sudo ./zpool get -Hp sit_out_reads tank `pwd`/file9

behlendorf · 2025-01-08T15:23:31Z

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

+	 * A zio->io_delay value of zero means this IO was part of
+	 * an aggregation.
+	 */
+	if (zio->io_type == ZIO_TYPE_READ && zio->io_error == 0 &&


What do you think about adding if raidz_read_sit_out_secs != 0 to this check to skip calculating the ewma when this detection is disabled. It might help a little.

Good idea. Added

* A zio->io_delay value of zero means this IO was part of * an aggregation. */ - if (zio->io_type == ZIO_TYPE_READ && zio->io_error == 0 && - zio->io_size > 0 && zio->io_delay != 0) { + if (raidz_read_sit_out_secs != 0 && zio->io_type == ZIO_TYPE_READ && + zio->io_error == 0 && zio->io_size > 0 && zio->io_delay != 0) { vdev_t *vd = zio->io_vd; uint64_t previous_ewma = atomic_load_64(&vd->vdev_ewma_latency); if (previous_ewma == 0)

A single slow responding disk can affect the overall read performance of a raidz group. When a raidz child disk is determined to be a persistent slow outlier, then have it sit out during reads for a period of time. The raidz group can use parity to reconstruct the data that was skipped. Each time a slow disk is placed into a sit out period, its `vdev_stat.vs_slow_ios count` is incremented and a zevent class `ereport.fs.zfs.delay` is posted. The length of the sit out period can be changed using the `raid_read_sit_out_secs` module parameter. Setting it to zero disables slow outlier detection. Sponsored-by: Klara, Inc. Sponsored-by: Wasabi Technology, Inc. Signed-off-by: Don Brady <[email protected]>

clhedrick · 2025-01-08T17:38:59Z

A response said that resilver reads would not be affected. I'd like to suggest that this may be a bad idea. We currently have a RAIDZ2 that is rebuilding. One of the disks is very, very slow but still responds. It's really slowing down the rebuild. I'd like the resilver to avoid reading from it. For a scrub I can see that you want to read everything, but I'm not so sure about resilver.

tonyhutter · 2025-01-08T18:44:45Z

man/man4/zfs.4

@@ -501,6 +501,18 @@ For testing, pause RAID-Z expansion when reflow amount reaches this value.
 .It Sy raidz_io_aggregate_rows Ns = Ns Sy 4 Pq ulong
 For expanded RAID-Z, aggregate reads that have more rows than this.
 .
+.It Sy raidz_read_sit_out_secs Ns = Ns Sy 600 Ns s Po 10 min Pc Pq ulong


All references to 'raidz' should be renamed to 'raid', since this works with dRAID (and to match the raid_read_sit_out_secs name in the commit message)

It was originally, I asked Don to rename it "raidz" in this #16900 (comment) so it's consistent with some other existing names. Perhaps the best thing to do would be rename it read_sit_out_secs. Then we could also generically apply it to mirrors if someday support is added for that.

Or even, sit_out_secs to be consistent with the other renames.

tonyhutter · 2025-01-08T18:49:29Z

man/man7/vdevprops.7

+Can also be incremented when a vdev was determined to be a raidz leaf latency
+outlier.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Who would be incrementing zio_slow_io_ms?

how about this...

slow_ios This indicates the number of slow I/O operations encountered by this vdev. A slow I/O is defined as an operation that did not complete within the zio_slow_io_ms threshold in mil‐ liseconds (30000 by default). For RAIDZ and DRAID configu‐ rations, this value also represents the number of times the vdev was identified as an outlier and excluded from partici‐ pating in read I/O operations.

tonyhutter · 2025-01-08T18:55:37Z

For a scrub I can see that you want to read everything, but I'm not so sure about resilver.

I agree with this - we would want the resilver to finish as quickly as possible. That would mean sitting out the sick disk if we could reconstruct from parity.

amotin · 2025-01-08T21:09:18Z

man/man7/vdevprops.7

@@ -104,12 +104,19 @@ Comma separated list of children of this vdev
 The number of children belonging to this vdev
 .It Sy read_errors , write_errors , checksum_errors , initialize_errors , trim_errors
 The number of errors of each type encountered by this vdev
+.It Sy sit_out_reads


I would rename it to just sit_out here and in other places to be brief. We could use it for other things too. For writes we now have ability to mark top-level vdevs as non-allocating in some cases, but may be we could converge those two at some point.

amotin · 2025-01-08T21:29:08Z

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

+	if (io_flags & (ZIO_FLAG_SCRUB | ZIO_FLAG_RESILVER))
+		return (B_FALSE);
+
+	return (vd->vdev_read_sit_out_expire >= gethrtime());


With raidz_read_sit_out_secs measured in seconds it makes no sense to measure vdev_read_sit_out_expire in nanoseconds. gethrtime() might be quite expensive on old hardware. gethrestime_sec() or something similar would be more than enough.

Good point. I'll change it to use gethrestime_sec()

amotin · 2025-01-08T21:36:18Z

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

+	/*
+	 * Scale using 16 bits with an effective alpha of 0.50
+	 */
+	const uint64_t scale = 16;
+	const uint64_t alpha = 32768;
+
+	return (((alpha * latest_value) + (((1ULL << scale) - alpha) *
+	    previous_ewma)) >> scale);


I don't understand why do you need 16 bit scale (you should still have few orders of magnitude before overflow, but it is just unnecessary) to implement alpha of 0.5. And why the alpha is so big? I would consider more significant dampening factor, considering we are talking about decision that will affect us for next 10 minutes.

an alpha of 0.5 was an arbitrary guess. More dampening is probably better. Here's some samples from a slow HD showing an alpha of 0.5 vs 0.25, times in microsecs. I'll change it to use 0.25

io_delay 0.5 0.25 19875 --> 21856 | 18598 20063 --> 20959 | 18964 33074 --> 27017 | 22492 24669 --> 25843 | 23036 19052 --> 22447 | 22040 26655 --> 24551 | 23194 31510 --> 28031 | 25273 33931 --> 30981 | 27437 34881 --> 32931 | 29298 41175 --> 37053 | 32267 25343 --> 31198 | 30536 6359 --> 18778 | 24492 129904 --> 74341 | 50845 136273 --> 105307 | 72202 60164 --> 82736 | 69192 12481 --> 47608 | 55015 6220 --> 26914 | 42816 52259 --> 39587 | 45177 16710 --> 28148 | 38060 83711 --> 55930 | 49473 12421 --> 34176 | 40210 22164 --> 28170 | 35698 19167 --> 23668 | 31565

amotin · 2025-01-08T21:46:30Z

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

+	hrtime_t now = gethrtime();
+	uint64_t last = atomic_load_64(&vd->vdev_last_latency_check);
+
+	if ((now - last) < MSEC2NSEC(raid_outlier_check_interval_ms) ||


Same as above, I think this could be switched to seconds.

amotin · 2025-01-08T21:51:33Z

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

+vdev_child_slow_outlier(zio_t *zio)
+{
+	vdev_t *vd = zio->io_vd;
+	if (raidz_read_sit_out_secs == 0 || vd->vdev_children < LAT_SAMPLES_MIN)


While some limit on number of samples makes sense, I am not sure it makes sense to apply it to the number of children. 3-wide RAIDZ1 may also have the same problems, but may be there we could use wider safety interval. If anywhere, the limit should be applied to a number of samples we have averaged for each children before we can trust any statistics. Though averaging hides the dispersion, so it might need more thinking how to account it better.

amotin · 2025-01-08T21:53:30Z

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

+	spa_t *spa = zio->io_spa;
+	if (spa_load_state(spa) == SPA_LOAD_TRYIMPORT ||
+	    spa_load_state(spa) == SPA_LOAD_RECOVER ||
+	    (spa_load_state(spa) != SPA_LOAD_NONE &&
+	    spa->spa_last_open_failed)) {


This block is executed every time in production for no much reason.

you're right. I'll remove it.

amotin · 2025-01-08T21:56:08Z

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

+	}
+
+	int samples = vd->vdev_children;
+	uint64_t data[LAT_SAMPLES_STACK];


I hope we have these 512 bytes of stack to waste.

It's more than I'd like, but my feeling is it should be alright. It does raise a few question though.

Does the kmem_alloc() really hurt performance given that we call this at most once per raid_outlier_check_interval_ms?

If it really is that expensive, it looks like we could allocate this buffer once and stash a pointer to it in the top-level raidz/draid vdev. The atomic_cas_64(&vd->vdev_last_latency_check) check on line 2923 should prevent concurrent access, and this would get right of the alloc in all cases. We'd definitely want to add a comment explaining this.

64 was chosen for benefit of draid path. Stack function depth is bounded and not that deep (below). But still, 512 is big and perhaps outside the spirt of being a good stack usage citizen.

vdev_child_slow_outlier vdev_raidz_io_done zio_vdev_io_done zio_execute taskq_thread

amotin · 2025-01-08T22:08:13Z

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

+		q3 = latency_median_value(&data[(n+1) >> 1], n>>1);
+
+	uint64_t iqr = q3 - q1;
+	uint64_t fence = q3 + iqr;


In comment you write fence = Q3 + 2 x (Q3 - Q1), but I don't see the 2x here.

Looking back across branches not sure how it mutated. I'll put it back to:
return (q3 + ((q3 - q1) << 2));

Just in case, << 2 is 4x, not 2x. But in general you don't need to be so heavy on bit shifts. Compilers can optimize those things just fine.

amotin · 2025-01-08T22:14:12Z

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c

+		if (atomic_add_64_nv(&svd->vdev_outlier_count, 1) >
+		    LAT_OUTLIER_LIMIT && svd == ovd &&
+		    svd->vdev_read_sit_out_expire == 0) {


I am not sure why do you care about the vdev with maximum number of outliers here, considering first of them reachinf LAT_OUTLIER_LIMIT will reset all to 0? Also since this code should be executed only by one thread, I am not sure after atomic_cas_64() above vdev_outlier_count needs atomic accesses. Also vdev_read_sit_out_expire should also be always 0 here, since you've checked that above.

tonyhutter · 2025-01-09T01:09:09Z

@don-brady I added a test case in my https://github.com/tonyhutter/zfs/tree/slow_vdev_sit_out branch. Commit is here: tonyhutter@8a58493

Would you mind pulling it into your patch stack? I have run it locally in a VM but have not tested in on the qemu runners yet.

also added test from Tony Signed-off-by: Don Brady <[email protected]>

behlendorf · 2025-01-09T22:56:22Z

tests/zfs-tests/tests/functional/events/slow_vdev_sit_out.ksh

+. $STF_SUITE/include/libtest.shlib
+
+# Avoid name conflicts with the default pool
+TESTPOOL2=testpool2


This is already defined in default.cfg.

behlendorf · 2025-01-09T23:07:53Z

tests/zfs-tests/tests/functional/events/slow_vdev_sit_out.ksh

+	log_must zinject -c all
+
+	# Wait for us to exit our sit out period
+	sleep 6


Let's add a wait_sit_out() function to tests/zfs-tests/include/libtest.shlib along with the various other wait_* functions. Something like this should work (not tested).

# # Wait for vdev 'sit_out' property to be cleared. # # $1 pool name # $2 timeout # function wait_sit_out #pool timeout { typeset timeout=${2:-300} typeset pool=${1:-$TESTPOOL} for (( timer = 0; timer < $timeout; timer++ )); do if [ "$(get_vdev_prop sit_out "$pool")" = "off" ]; then return 0 fi sleep 1; done return 1 }

and

log_must wait_sit_out $TESTPOOL2 10

behlendorf · 2025-01-10T00:30:41Z

module/zfs/vdev_draid.c

+		}
+	}
+
+	/*


To skip vdevs which are sitting out during a resilver we need to modify this check slightly. Each resilvering drive will add one to rr->rr_missingdata and if we're going to sit out one more drive there needs to be sufficient parity available. This updated code should do the trick. You'll need to update the raidz similarly.

Can you also add versions of tests/functional/replacement/attach_resilver.ksh, tests/functional/replacement/replace_resilver.ksh which sit out a drive during the resilver. We'll want to test raidz[1-3] and draid[1-3].

/* * When the row contains a latency outlier and sufficient parity * exists to reconstruct the column data, then skip reading the * known slow child vdev as a performance optimization. */ if (rr->rr_outlier_cnt > 0) { int available_parity = rr->rr_firstdatacol - rr->rr_missingparity; int required_parity = rr->rr_missingdata + 1; if (available_parity >= required_parity) { for (int c = rr->rr_cols - 1; c >= rr->rr_firstdatacol; c--) { raidz_col_t *rc = &rr->rr_col[c]; if (rc->rc_error == 0 && rc->rc_latency_outlier) { rr->rr_missingdata++; rc->rc_error = SET_ERROR(EAGAIN); rc->rc_skipped = 1; break; } } } }

tonyhutter · 2025-01-10T01:49:46Z

"raidz" should be removed from the parameter name in Linux to be consistent with the FreeBSD name. Right now it is:

FreeBSD
$ sysctl -ad | grep sit_out
vfs.zfs.vdev.read_sit_out_secs: Raidz/draid slow disk sit out time period in seconds

Linux
$ ls -l /sys/module/zfs/parameters/ | grep sit_out
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 4096 Jan  9 17:41 raidz_read_sit_out_secs

amotin reviewed Dec 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

amotin added the Status: Code Review Needed Ready for review and testing label Dec 26, 2024

tonyhutter reviewed Dec 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

0mp reviewed Jan 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

behlendorf reviewed Jan 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

don-brady force-pushed the raidz-detect-slow-outlier branch 2 times, most recently from 1140ee3 to 3965f73 Compare January 6, 2025 21:34

behlendorf requested review from tonyhutter and amotin January 6, 2025 23:10

don-brady force-pushed the raidz-detect-slow-outlier branch from 3965f73 to 77e4878 Compare January 8, 2025 01:00

behlendorf reviewed Jan 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

behlendorf approved these changes Jan 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

don-brady force-pushed the raidz-detect-slow-outlier branch from 77e4878 to 64d5138 Compare January 8, 2025 17:36

tonyhutter reviewed Jan 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

amotin reviewed Jan 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

More changes from recent feedback

fd1252a

also added test from Tony Signed-off-by: Don Brady <[email protected]>

behlendorf reviewed Jan 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

behlendorf reviewed Jan 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

		Can also be incremented when a vdev was determined to be a raidz leaf latency
		outlier.

+              		}
+              	}
+              	/*

Detect a slow raidz child during reads #16900

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Detect a slow raidz child during reads #16900

Conversation

don-brady commented Dec 23, 2024

Motivation and Context

Description

How Has This Been Tested?

Types of changes

Checklist:

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tonyhutter commented Dec 30, 2024

don-brady commented Jan 3, 2025

don-brady commented Jan 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

behlendorf commented Jan 4, 2025

don-brady commented Jan 5, 2025

don-brady commented Jan 6, 2025

tonyhutter commented Jan 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

clhedrick commented Jan 8, 2025

tonyhutter Jan 8, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

behlendorf Jan 8, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tonyhutter commented Jan 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

amotin Jan 8, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

don-brady Jan 9, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

amotin Jan 8, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tonyhutter commented Jan 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tonyhutter commented Jan 10, 2025

tonyhutter Jan 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

behlendorf Jan 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

amotin Jan 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

don-brady Jan 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

amotin Jan 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading