[ Saturday, September 18, 1999 ] James Manning wrote: > Ok, I wrote a patch that passes the ctl_table pointer of > /proc/dev/md as the param for raid?_init, but noticed differing > opinions on return values (although it doesn't much matter) [snip] Well, I tried booting and it died with some SYSCTL() errors (figures :) so if it looks like the patch at least has the right idea, let me know and I'll try fixing up the problems... otherwise lemme know how you'd like to see a settable raid1 balance implemented :) James -- Miscellaneous Engineer --- IBM Netfinity Performance Development
- Slower read access on RAID-1 than regular partition william
- Re: Slower read access on RAID-1 than regular parti... James Manning
- Re: Slower read access on RAID-1 than regular p... mingo
- Re: Slower read access on RAID-1 than regul... D. Lance Robinson
- Re: Slower read access on RAID-1 than regul... James Manning
- Re: Slower read access on RAID-1 than r... mingo
- [PATCH] adjustable raid1 balancing (was... James Manning
- Re: [PATCH] adjustable raid1 balan... Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] adjustable raid1 b... James Manning
- [PATCH v2] raid1 balancing James Manning
- Re: [PATCH v2] raid1 balan... James Manning
- Re: [PATCH v2] raid1 balan... Gadi Oxman
- Re: [PATCH v2] raid1 balan... CJones
- Re: [PATCH v2] raid1 balan... James Manning
- Re: [PATCH v2] raid1 balan... Elie Rosenblum
- Re: Slower read access on RAID-1 than regular parti... Tim Moore
- Re: Slower read access on RAID-1 than regular parti... william
- Re: Slower read access on RAID-1 than regular parti... william
- Re: Slower read access on RAID-1 than regular p... CJones
- Re: Slower read access on RAID-1 than regul... James Manning
- [USELESS PATCH] Re: Slower read access on RAID-... James Manning
