AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20090205131839.02734853@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:exch1.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>,<Bill.Fisher@onstor.com>,<brian.stark@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@exch1.onstor.net/INBOX	0	2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB51851E65DB9@exch1.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:18:47 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: Maxim Kozlovsky <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>
Cc: Bill Fisher <Bill.Fisher@onstor.com>, Brian Stark
 <brian.stark@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: Some observations with the latest PROM's
Message-ID: <20090205131847.4a5b6848@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB51851E65DB9@exch1.onstor.net>
References: <498A816C.1050108@onstor.com>
	<2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB51851E65D10@exch1.onstor.net>
	<20090205103245.0903f3b8@ripper.onstor.net>
	<2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB51851E65D7A@exch1.onstor.net>
	<20090205114324.5c29a4e1@ripper.onstor.net>
	<2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB51851E65DB9@exch1.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:49:51 -0800 Maxim Kozlovsky
<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Andy Sharp
> >Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 11:43 AM
> >To: Maxim Kozlovsky
> >Cc: Bill Fisher; Brian Stark
> >Subject: Re: Some observations with the latest PROM's
> >
> >On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:13:45 -0800 Maxim Kozlovsky
> ><maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Andy Sharp
> >> >Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:33 AM
> >> >To: Maxim Kozlovsky
> >> >Cc: Bill Fisher; Brian Stark
> >> >Subject: Re: Some observations with the latest PROM's
> >> >
> >> >Well, by all means blame all problems on the image loading.
> >> >
> >> >The image loading can't be the cause of any watchdog NMIs.
> >> [MK] Yes it can, the FP or TXRX will crash with watchdog timeout on
> >> startup if the other image is not running.
> >
> >If true, that's a bug in those programs, not the image loading.
> [MK] 
> 
> There is no bug, txrx and fp need to synchronize on startup, if they
> fail to synchronize within certain period of time they need to reboot.

Sure, but that's not a watchdog NMI.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >>  Also, my
> >> >tests show that parallel loading is the same speed as sequential.
> >> >Remember that the CF isn't really a disk, it's random access flash
> >> >acting as a disk, and random reads are the same speed as
> >> >sequential reads.  It might be slower if loading over NFS.  You
> >> >can always edit /etc/init.d/onstor-load-embedded and remove the
> >> >"--background" option from the start-stop-daemon line if you want.
> >> [MK]
> >>
> >> I am interested in the NFS load times, not CF load times.
> >>
> >> Loading sequentially with the current loader would still be wrong
> >> because this will start one of the images while the other one is
> >> still loading. It has to be a single process which will start the
> >> images after both txrx and fp are loaded.
> >
> >I will start experimenting with an NFS setup to get that working
> >right.  I've been using a network configuration, but not NFS, so in
> >the end it really wasn't any different.
> >
> 
