--- Michael Tokarev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> []
> > The other thing is, the bitmap is supposed to be
> written out at intervals,
> > not at every write, so the extra head movement for
> bitmap updates should
> > be really low, and not making the tar -xjf process
> slow
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
[]
> The other thing is, the bitmap is supposed to be written out at intervals,
> not at every write, so the extra head movement for bitmap updates should
> be really low, and not making the tar -xjf process slower by half a minute.
> Is there a way to tweak the write-bitmap-t
On Mar 7 2007 10:20, dean gaudet wrote:
>>> http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Install_on_Software_RAID#Write-intent_bitmap
>>
>> That information has been extremely useful. Thanks a
>> lot. I fund a command to do the bitmap internal after
>> the array was made so I added that. Seems like some of
>> th
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> --- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 4 2007 19:37, Marc Perkel wrote:
> > >>
> > >> -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed
> > up
> > >> resynchronization.
> > >
> > >I'm trying to figure out what the default is.
>> > -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up
>> > resynchronization.
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out what the default is.
>> > -e 1.0 -- I wonder why the new superblock format
>> > is
>> > not default in mdadm (0.90 is still used).
>> >
>>
>> Looks interesting for big arrays but not
Marc Perkel wrote:
--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 4 2007 19:17, Marc Perkel wrote:
Thanks - because of your suggestion I had found the
instructions. But you have some interesting options
set.
-N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0
Are these important?
-N? What's in a name
On Mar 5 2007 07:59, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>That information has been extremely useful. Thanks a
>lot. I fund a command to do the bitmap internal after
>the array was made so I added that. Seems like some of
>these features should be default. Maybe it's time for
>the raid folks to update what is de
--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 4 2007 19:37, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >>
> >> -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed
> up
> >> resynchronization.
> >
> >I'm trying to figure out what the default is.
>
> -b none, meaning the whole drive will be
> resynchronize
On Mar 4 2007 19:37, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>
>> -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up
>> resynchronization.
>
>I'm trying to figure out what the default is.
-b none, meaning the whole drive will be resynchronized when the
even counters don't match.
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_In
--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 4 2007 19:17, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >Thanks - because of your suggestion I had found the
> >instructions. But you have some interesting options
> >set.
> >
> >-N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0
> >
> >Are these important?
>
> -N? What's in
On Mar 4 2007 19:17, Marc Perkel wrote:
>Thanks - because of your suggestion I had found the
>instructions. But you have some interesting options
>set.
>
>-N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0
>
>Are these important?
-N? What's in a name? I suppose, it's not so important.
(Arrays are identified by
--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 4 2007 15:10, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >> On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >> >I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm
> >> not
> >> >sure if this is a factor or not as the problem
> >> occurs
> >> >without starting any VEs.
On Mar 4 2007 15:10, Marc Perkel wrote:
>> On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote:
>> >I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm
>> not
>> >sure if this is a factor or not as the problem
>> occurs
>> >without starting any VEs.
>> >
>> >I've never used raid 10 before (stripes on top of 2
>>
--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm
> not
> >sure if this is a factor or not as the problem
> occurs
> >without starting any VEs.
> >
> >I've never used raid 10 before (stripes on top of 2
>
On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote:
>I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm not
>sure if this is a factor or not as the problem occurs
>without starting any VEs.
>
>I've never used raid 10 before (stripes on top of 2
>mirrors) so I don't have anything to compare this
>with. I'm just
Running into a problem and not sure what I'm doing
wrong. Created a software raid 10 array. Everything
seems to be normal except that if you take the array
down and run e2fsck on it there are always errors,
mostly all little stuff and it recovers without losing
any data.
I'm running the latest Ope
16 matches
Mail list logo
