switching cache buffer size?
I get a lot these after moving to 2.4 from 2.2(patched). What are they? raid5: switching cache buffer size, 1024 -- 4096 raid5: switching cache buffer size, 4096 -- 1024 raid5: switching cache buffer size, 1024 -- 4096 raid5: switching cache buffer size, 4096 -- 1024 raid5: switching cache buffer size, 1024 -- 4096 Kaj-Michael Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Java? I've heard of it, it is what I drink while hacking PHP! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [linux-lvm] Raid5 sync problem
You are running off of parity. Until you get that drive fixed, it will hurt. I *think* I've found out what happened (not sure, not tested), fsck was trying to scan all of the LVs on the same raid5 at the same time. And as the raid5 code had to calculate everything and trying to sync in the background... instant high load. But I'm not sure.. and I really don't wan't to test it.. Could that be it ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switching cache buffer size?
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 01:52:25PM +0300, Kaj-Michael Lang wrote: I get a lot these after moving to 2.4 from 2.2(patched). What are they? raid5: switching cache buffer size, 1024 -- 4096 raid5: switching cache buffer size, 4096 -- 1024 raid5: switching cache buffer size, 1024 -- 4096 raid5: switching cache buffer size, 4096 -- 1024 raid5: switching cache buffer size, 1024 -- 4096 lvm over raid5??? if you get a lot of them, continuous stream, check that every filesystem has the same blocksize. else your raid5 will perform really poorly. it also happens during lvm operations. btw if you swap over there block-size of swap is page size L. -- Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Communication Media Services S.r.l. /\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN XAGAINST HTML MAIL / \ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [linux-lvm] Raid5 sync problem
Kai-Michael writes: I *think* I've found out what happened (not sure, not tested), fsck was trying to scan all of the LVs on the same raid5 at the same time. And as the raid5 code had to calculate everything and trying to sync in the background... instant high load. But I'm not sure.. and I really don't wan't to test it.. Yes, there was a bug in fsck where if it couldn't determine if two devices were on the same disk, it assumed they were NOT and did fsck in parallel. In the MOST recent fsck (i.e. 1 week old, CVS only), this has been fixed so that it will run the two fscks in serial. Whether that was your problem or not, I'm not sure. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger \ If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry? http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
