On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, dean gaudet wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, David Greaves wrote:
Bryan Christ wrote:
I do have the type set to 0xfd. Others have said that auto-assemble only
works on RAID 0 and 1, but just as Justin mentioned, I too have another box
with RAID5 that gets auto assembled
Did the asynchronous write stuff (as it was in fr1) ever get into kernel
software raid?
I see from the raid acceleration (ioat) patching going on that some
sort of asynchronicity is being contemplated, but blessed if I can make
head or tail of the descriptions I've read. It looks vaguely like
dean gaudet wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, David Greaves wrote:
Bryan Christ wrote:
I do have the type set to 0xfd. Others have said that auto-assemble only
works on RAID 0 and 1, but just as Justin mentioned, I too have another box
with RAID5 that gets auto assembled by the kernel (also no
David Shaw wrote:
It fails whether I use a raw /dev/sdd or partition it into one large
/dev/sdd1, or partition into multiple partitions. sata_sil24 seems to
work by itself, as does dm, but as soon as I mix sata_sil24+dm, I get
corruption.
H Can you reproduce the corruption by
Hi,
I'm getting a strange slow performance behavior on a recently installed
Server. Here are the details:
Server: Asus AS-TS500-E4A
Board: Asus DSBV-D (
http://uk.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=9l2=39l3=299l4=0model=1210modelmenu=2
)
Hard Drives: 3x Seagate ST3400620AS (
I recently got a chance to test SW RAID5 using 750GB disks (10) in a RAID5
on a 3ware card, model no: 9550SXU-12
The bottom line is the controller is doing some weird caching with writes
on SW RAID5 which makes it not worth using.
Recall, with SW RAID5 using regular SATA cards with (mind
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Rui Santos wrote:
Hi,
I'm getting a strange slow performance behavior on a recently installed
Server. Here are the details:
Server: Asus AS-TS500-E4A
Board: Asus DSBV-D (
http://uk.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=9l2=39l3=299l4=0model=1210modelmenu=2
)
Hard Drives: 3x Seagate
Cosmetic changes. This is taken from Jens' zero-length barrier patch.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
block/ll_rw_blk.c |5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: work/block/ll_rw_blk.c
Justin Piszcz wrote:
UltraDense-AS-3ware-R5-9-disks,16G,50676,89,96019,34,46379,9,60267,99,5010
98,56,248.5,0,16:10:16/64,240,3,21959,84,1109,10,286,4,22923,91,544,6
UltraDense-AS-3ware-R5-9-disks,16G,49983,88,96902,37,47951,10,59002,99,529
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod().
This is taken from Jens' zero-length barrier patch.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
block/ll_rw_blk.c | 63
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod().
Tejun, yeah I should seperate the cleanups and put them in the upstream
branch. Will do so and add your signed-off to both of them.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 06:23:25AM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
I recently got a chance to test SW RAID5 using 750GB disks (10) in a RAID5
on a 3ware card, model no: 9550SXU-12
The bottom line is the controller is doing some weird caching with writes
on SW RAID5 which makes it not worth
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod().
Tejun, yeah I should seperate the cleanups and put them in the upstream
branch. Will do so and add your
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 06:23:25AM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
I recently got a chance to test SW RAID5 using 750GB disks (10) in a RAID5
on a 3ware card, model no: 9550SXU-12
The bottom line is the controller is doing some weird caching with writes
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
Justin Piszcz ha scritto:
I recently got a chance to test SW RAID5 using 750GB disks (10) in a RAID5
on a 3ware card, model no: 9550SXU-12
The bottom line is the controller is doing some weird caching with writes
on SW RAID5 which makes it not
On 18.07.2007 13:19, Justin Piszcz wrote:
For the HW RAID tests (2) at the bottom of the e-mail, no, I did not set
nr_requests or use the deadline scheduler.
For the SW RAID tests, I applied similar optimizations, I am probably
not at the latest firmware. The main thing I wanted to use
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod().
Tejun, yeah I should seperate the cleanups and put them in the
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Hannes Dorbath wrote:
On 18.07.2007 13:19, Justin Piszcz wrote:
For the HW RAID tests (2) at the bottom of the e-mail, no, I did not set
nr_requests or use the deadline scheduler.
For the SW RAID tests, I applied similar optimizations, I am probably not
at the latest
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod().
Tejun, yeah I should seperate the cleanups and put them
Justin Piszcz wrote (ao):
Its too bad that there are no regular 4 port SATA PCI-e controllers
out there.
Is there a disadvantage to using a SaS controller from for example
lsi.com ?
http://lsi.com/storage_home/products_home/host_bus_adapters/sas_hbas/index.html
I haven't tried them yet, but
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod().
Tejun,
On 18.07.2007 13:32, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Yes I agree here, but I guess my question is why is SW RAID5 so slow on
the 3ware card?
I think the controller does disable the drives write cache when exported
unconfigured. It does always disable, unless you put the drive in a unit
and explicit
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
fully inlined each time. Factor out
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
fully
Justin Piszcz ha scritto:
I recently got a chance to test SW RAID5 using 750GB disks (10) in a
RAID5 on a 3ware card, model no: 9550SXU-12
The bottom line is the controller is doing some weird caching with
writes on SW RAID5 which makes it not worth using.
Recall, with SW RAID5 using
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
End of device check is done
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
UltraDense-AS-3ware-R5-9-disks,16G,50676,89,96019,34,46379,9,60267,99,5010
98,56,248.5,0,16:10:16/64,240,3,21959,84,1109,10,286,4,22923,91,544,6
UltraDense-AS-3ware-R5-9-disks,16G,49983,88,96902,37,47951,10,59002,99,529
Justin Piszcz wrote (ao):
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Sander wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote (ao):
Its too bad that there are no regular 4 port SATA PCI-e controllers
out there.
Is there a disadvantage to using a SaS controller from for example
lsi.com ?
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Sander wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote (ao):
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Sander wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote (ao):
Its too bad that there are no regular 4 port SATA PCI-e controllers
out there.
Is there a disadvantage to using a SaS controller from for example
lsi.com ?
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
End of device check is done
Jens Axboe wrote:
somewhat annoying, I'll see if I can prefix it with git-daemon in the
future.
OK, now skip the /data/git/ stuff and just use
git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git
Alright, it works like a charm now. Thanks.
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 05:53:39PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
It fails whether I use a raw /dev/sdd or partition it into one large
/dev/sdd1, or partition into multiple partitions. sata_sil24 seems to
work by itself, as does dm, but as soon as I mix sata_sil24+dm, I get
On Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:26:11PM +0200, Hannes Dorbath wrote:
I think what you might be experiencing is that XFS can read su,sw values
from the MD device and will automatically optimize itself, while it
can't do that for the HW RAID device. It is absolutely essential to
align your file
Justin Piszcz wrote (ao):
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Sander wrote:
I guess they are cheap enough to try (I haven't yet):
PCIe:
http://lsi.com/storage_home/products_home/host_bus_adapters/sas_hbas/lsisas3080xr/index.html
PCI-X
On 18.07.2007 12:23, Justin Piszcz wrote:
I am sure one of your questions is, well, why use SW RAID5 on the
controller? Because SW RAID5 is usually much faster than HW RAID5, at
least in my tests:
Though that's no answer to your question, I really can't confirm that.
I'm running a 3Ware
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 01:51:16PM +0100, Robin Hill wrote:
Just to pick up on this one (as I'm about to reformat my array as XFS) -
does this actually work with a hardware controller? Is there any
assurance that the XFS stripes align with the hardware RAID stripes? Or
could you just end up
I'm now very confused...
When I run mdadm --examine /dev/md0 I get the error message: No
superblock detected on /dev/md0
However, when I run mdadm -D /dev/md0 the report clearly states
Superblock is persistent
/dev/md0:
Version : 00.90.03
Creation Time : Tue Jul 17 10:17:37 2007
Bryan Christ wrote:
I'm now very confused...
It's all that top-posting...
When I run mdadm --examine /dev/md0 I get the error message: No
superblock detected on /dev/md0
However, when I run mdadm -D /dev/md0 the report clearly states
Superblock is persistent
David Greaves wrote:
*
Ya. I saw my mistake just a little while ago and running --examine on
the component worked fine. I didn't see anything suspicious.
David Greaves wrote:
Bryan Christ wrote:
I'm now very confused...
It's all that top-posting...
When I run mdadm --examine /dev/md0 I get the error message:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Hannes Dorbath wrote:
On 18.07.2007 12:23, Justin Piszcz wrote:
I am sure one of your questions is, well, why use SW RAID5 on the
controller? Because SW RAID5 is usually much faster than HW RAID5, at
least in my tests:
Though that's no answer to your question, I
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Rui Santos wrote:
Hi,
I'm getting a strange slow performance behavior on a recently installed
Server. Here are the details:
Server: Asus AS-TS500-E4A
Board: Asus DSBV-D (
http://uk.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=9l2=39l3=299l4=0model=1210modelmenu=2
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 12:26 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
I will try these options during future testing and re-visit the speeds of
regular HW RAID5, thanks! I know they are part of the 3ware doc and I
need to re-bench with these.
3Ware cards should be tuned for optimal performance,
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 13:17 +0200, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
Indeed not exists for PCI-e but Oden has spotted this PCI-X card
(which is around 97$), based on marvell chipset:
http://www.supermicro.com/products/accessories/addon/AoC-SAT2-MV8.cfm
Yes! There are several Broadcom and Marvell ASICs
On Wednesday July 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Greaves wrote:
See where it says 'component' ? :)
I wish mdadm --detail and --examine were just aliases and the output
varied according to whether you looked at a component (eg /dev/sda1)
or an md device (/dev/md0)
I get that
On Saturday July 14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EXTENDED DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
i first noticed this problem when i downloaded the fedora core 7 .iso,
and did a checksum on it, and it didn't match. with a little more
investigating, i found that i could make a copy of any large file on
disk,
Linux 2.6.22
Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.26GHz
00:0f.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc.
VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT8233/A/C/VT8235 PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06)
Reiserfs3
I have 2 PATA HDs and they always worked perfectly with
software (kernel) raid1 using the old IDE kernel drivers.
On Wednesday July 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linux 2.6.22
Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.26GHz
00:0f.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc.
VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT8233/A/C/VT8235 PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06)
Reiserfs3
I have 2 PATA HDs and they always worked perfectly with
47 matches
Mail list logo
