Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday November 8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have created a new raid6:
md0 : active raid6 sdb1[0] sdl1[5] sdj1[4] sdh1[3] sdf1[2] sdd1[1]
6834868224 blocks level 6, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/6] [UUUUUU]
[====>................] resync = 21.5% (368216964/1708717056)
finish=448.5min speed=49808K/sec
bitmap: 204/204 pages [816KB], 4096KB chunk
The raid is totally idle, not mounted and nothing.
So why does the "bitmap: 204/204" not sink? I would expect it to clear
bits as it resyncs so it should count slowly down to 0. As a side
effect of the bitmap being all dirty the resync will restart from the
beginning when the system is hard reset. As you can imagine that is
pretty anoying.
On the other hand on a clean shutdown it seems the bitmap gets updated
before stopping the array:
md3 : active raid6 sdc1[0] sdm1[5] sdk1[4] sdi1[3] sdg1[2] sde1[1]
6834868224 blocks level 6, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/6] [UUUUUU]
[=======>.............] resync = 38.4% (656155264/1708717056)
finish=17846.4min speed=982K/sec
bitmap: 187/204 pages [748KB], 4096KB chunk
Consequently the rebuild did restart and is already further along.
Thanks for the report.
Any ideas why that is so?
Yes. The following patch should explain (a bit tersely) why this was
so, and should also fix it so it will no longer be so. Test reports
always welcome.
NeilBrown
Status: ok
Update md bitmap during resync.
Currently and md array with a write-intent bitmap does not updated
that bitmap to reflect successful partial resync. Rather the entire
bitmap is updated when the resync completes.
This is because there is no guarentee that resync requests will
complete in order, and tracking each request individually is
unnecessarily burdensome.
However there is value in regularly updating the bitmap, so add code
to periodically pause while all pending sync requests complete, then
update the bitmap. Doing this only every few seconds (the same as the
bitmap update time) does not notciable affect resync performance.
I wonder if a minimum time and minimum number of stripes would be
better. If a resync is going slowly because it's going over a slow link
to iSCSI, nbd, or a box of cheap drives fed off a single USB port, just
writing the updated bitmap may represent as much data as has been
resynced in the time slice.
Not a suggestion, but a request for your thoughts on that.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
