Ming Zhang wrote:
off topic, could you resubmit the alignment issue patch to list and see
if tomof accept. he needs a patch inlined in email. it is found and
fixed by you, so had better you post it (instead of me). thx.
diff -u kernel.old/iscsi.c kernel/iscsi.c
--- kernel.old/iscsi.c
Dan Williams wrote:
On 10/24/07, BERTRAND Joël [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Any news about this trouble ? Any idea ? I'm trying to fix it, but I
don't see any specific interaction between raid5 and istd. Does anyone
try to reproduce this bug on another arch than sparc64 ? I
On 10/27/07, BERTRAND Joël [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
Can you collect some oprofile data, as Ming suggested, so we can maybe
see what md_d0_raid5 and istd1 are fighting about? Hopefully it is as
painless to run on sparc as it is on IA:
opcontrol --start
Dan Williams wrote:
On 10/27/07, BERTRAND Joël [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
Can you collect some oprofile data, as Ming suggested, so we can maybe
see what md_d0_raid5 and istd1 are fighting about? Hopefully it is as
painless to run on sparc as it is on IA:
opcontrol --start
off topic, could you resubmit the alignment issue patch to list and see
if tomof accept. he needs a patch inlined in email. it is found and
fixed by you, so had better you post it (instead of me). thx.
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 15:29 +0200, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On 10/24/07,
Hello,
Any news about this trouble ? Any idea ? I'm trying to fix it, but I
don't see any specific interaction between raid5 and istd. Does anyone
try to reproduce this bug on another arch than sparc64 ? I only use
sparc32 and 64 servers and I cannot test on other archs. Of course, I
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Hello,
Any news about this trouble ? Any idea ? I'm trying to fix it, but
I don't see any specific interaction between raid5 and istd. Does
anyone try to reproduce this bug on another arch than sparc64 ? I only
use sparc32 and 64 servers and I cannot test on
On 10/24/07, BERTRAND Joël [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Any news about this trouble ? Any idea ? I'm trying to fix it, but I
don't see any specific interaction between raid5 and istd. Does anyone
try to reproduce this bug on another arch than sparc64 ? I only use
sparc32
From: Dan Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:49:28 -0700
Hopefully it is as painless to run on sparc as it is on IA:
opcontrol --start --vmlinux=/path/to/vmlinux
wait
opcontrol --stop
opreport --image-path=/lib/modules/`uname -r` -l
It is painless, I use it all the time.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Sorry for this last mail. I have found another mistake, but I
don't know if this bug comes from iscsi-target or raid5 itself. iSCSI
target is disconnected because istd1 and md_d0_raid5 kernel threads
use 100% of CPU each !
Tasks: 235 total,
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:04 -0700, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I run for 12 hours some dd's (read and write in nullio)
between
initiator and target without any disconnection. Thus iSCSI code seems
to
be robust. Both initiator
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 23:04 +0200, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:04 -0700, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I run for 12 hours some dd's (read and write in nullio)
between
initiator
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:04 -0700, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I run for 12 hours some dd's (read and write in nullio)
between
initiator and
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 14:04 -0700, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Sorry for this last mail. I have found another mistake, but I
don't
know if this bug comes from iscsi-target or raid5 itself. iSCSI target
is disconnected because istd1 and md_d0_raid5 kernel threads use 100%
of
CPU each !
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Sorry for this last mail. I have found another mistake, but I
don't know if this bug comes from iscsi-target or raid5 itself. iSCSI
target is disconnected because istd1 and md_d0_raid5 kernel threads
use 100% of CPU each !
Tasks: 235 total, 6 running, 227
Bill Davidsen wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Sorry for this last mail. I have found another mistake, but I
don't know if this bug comes from iscsi-target or raid5 itself. iSCSI
target is disconnected because istd1 and md_d0_raid5 kernel threads
use 100% of CPU each !
Tasks: 235 total,
[snip]
I am unsure why you would want to setup an iSCSI RAID1, but before
doing so I would try to verify that each independant iSCSI session
is bullet proof.
I use one and only one iSCSI session. Raid1 array is built between a
local and iSCSI volume.
So you only get this
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:04 -0700, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I run for 12 hours some dd's (read and write in nullio)
between
initiator and target without any
18 matches
Mail list logo
