On 7/30/13 18:24 , "Michael Roth" <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>Quoting Tomoki Sekiyama (2013-07-30 15:54:05)
>>On 7/30/13 15:35 , "Michael Roth" <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>One small issue I noticed was that this error will get overwritten
>>>>>with the VSS writer timeout error if we wait longer than 60s before
>>>>>calling guest-fsfreeze-thaw. It might give some users false assurances
>>>>>about what aspects of their snapshot may be volatile so it's
>>>>>probably worth addressing.
>>>>This is an error returned against guest-fsfreeze-freeze, when the
>>>>writers or filesystems take more than 60s to quiesce.
>>>>(CQGAVssProvider::CommitSnapshots that issues FrozenEvent is
>>>>called after this quiescing succeeded.) The VSS sequence is aborted
>>>>at "out:". If this happens, as the system remains thawed state, the
>>>>following guest-fsfreeze-thaw will just return 0.
>>>
>>>This is the example I'm referring to:
>>>
>>>{'execute':'guest-fsfreeze-freeze'}
>>>{"return": 2}
>>>/* wait 10+ seconds */
>>>{'execute':'guest-fsfreeze-thaw'}
>>>{"error": {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "couldn't hold writes:
>>>fsfreeze is limited up to 10 seconds: (error: 80042314)"}}
>>>{'execute':'guest-fsfreeze-freeze'}
>>>{"return": 2}
>>>/* wait 60+ seconds */
>>>{'execute':'guest-fsfreeze-thaw'}
>>>{"error": {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "failed to do snapshot set:
>>>(error: 8004230f)"}}
>>>
>>>It this seems to be because CommitSnapshot returns in the latter
>>>instance
>>>due
>>>to VSS_TIMEOUT_MSEC wait and it's E_ABORT error message overwrites the
>>>VSS_E_HOLD_WRITES_TIMEOUT from earlier. Perhaps we could just have
>>>CommitSnapshot return VSS_E_HOLD_WRITES_TIMEOUT if it doesn't get the
>>>thaw
>>>event in time? I think that error message is much more informative for
>>>users.
>>Agreed.
>>How about modifying the provider to return S_OK instead of E_ABORT
>>when it exceeds VSS_TIMEOUT_MSEC?
>>As VSS_TIMEOUT_MSEC is larger than 10 seconds fsfreeze timeout,
>>CommitSnapshot will return VSS_E_HOLD_WRITES_TIMEOUT on provider's
>>timeout,
>>and give "fsfreeze is limited up to 10 seconds" message to users.
>>The writers are also automatically thawed by 60 seconds timeout anyway,
>>this wouldn't break anything.
>
>Hmm, it seems like it would work, but I'm a bit worried about returning
>S_OK and hoping VSS still produces an error. Probably really unlikely, but
>I could imagine a really strange timing issue where the 60 second timeout
>for whatever reason gets triggered before the 10 second one (maybe because
>one vcpu is being starved for whatever reason, don't know enough about
>windows timekeeping mechanisms to know how plausible this is, but I'd
>rather not rely on it not happening).
>
>One way you could maybe do it would be maybe introducing a hEventTimeout
>that CommitSnapshots will set if it times out. That way we can poll
>it to see if the event is set when we get VSS_E_UNEXPECTED_PROVIDER_ERROR
>in the requester. If it's set we know a timeout occurred on provider side,
>and return the E_VSS_HOLD_WRITES_TIMEOUT error.
OK, this sounds more reliable. I will take this way.
Thanks,
Tomoki Sekiyama
