Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Neil Brown wrote: On Thursday March 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you look at "cat /proc/mdstat" ?? What sort of speed was the check running at? Around 44MB/s. I do use the following optimization, perhaps a bad idea if I want other processes to 'stay alive'? echo "Setting minimum resync speed to 200MB/s..." echo "This improves the resync speed from 2.1MB/s to 44MB/s" echo 20 > /sys/block/md0/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 > /sys/block/md1/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 > /sys/block/md2/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 > /sys/block/md3/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 > /sys/block/md4/md/sync_speed_min Yes, well You told it to use up to 200MB/s and the drives are only delivering 44MB/s, so they will be taking nearly all of the available bandwidth. You shouldn't be too surprised if other things suffer. NeilBrown Understood, will reduce this, thanks. Justin. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Neil Brown wrote: On Thursday March 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you look at cat /proc/mdstat ?? What sort of speed was the check running at? Around 44MB/s. I do use the following optimization, perhaps a bad idea if I want other processes to 'stay alive'? echo Setting minimum resync speed to 200MB/s... echo This improves the resync speed from 2.1MB/s to 44MB/s echo 20 /sys/block/md0/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md1/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md2/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md3/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md4/md/sync_speed_min Yes, well You told it to use up to 200MB/s and the drives are only delivering 44MB/s, so they will be taking nearly all of the available bandwidth. You shouldn't be too surprised if other things suffer. NeilBrown Understood, will reduce this, thanks. Justin. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
On Thursday March 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Did you look at "cat /proc/mdstat" ?? What sort of speed was the check > > running at? > Around 44MB/s. > > I do use the following optimization, perhaps a bad idea if I want other > processes to 'stay alive'? > > echo "Setting minimum resync speed to 200MB/s..." > echo "This improves the resync speed from 2.1MB/s to 44MB/s" > echo 20 > /sys/block/md0/md/sync_speed_min > echo 20 > /sys/block/md1/md/sync_speed_min > echo 20 > /sys/block/md2/md/sync_speed_min > echo 20 > /sys/block/md3/md/sync_speed_min > echo 20 > /sys/block/md4/md/sync_speed_min > Yes, well You told it to use up to 200MB/s and the drives are only delivering 44MB/s, so they will be taking nearly all of the available bandwidth. You shouldn't be too surprised if other things suffer. NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote: > >Did you look at "cat /proc/mdstat" ?? What sort of speed was the check > >running at? > Around 44MB/s. > > I do use the following optimization, perhaps a bad idea if I want other > processes to 'stay alive'? > > echo "Setting minimum resync speed to 200MB/s..." > echo "This improves the resync speed from 2.1MB/s to 44MB/s" > echo 20 > /sys/block/md0/md/sync_speed_min > echo 20 > /sys/block/md1/md/sync_speed_min > echo 20 > /sys/block/md2/md/sync_speed_min > echo 20 > /sys/block/md3/md/sync_speed_min > echo 20 > /sys/block/md4/md/sync_speed_min md RAID1 resync reacts *extremely* badly to CFQ. Just a data point, you may want to check on it. Might mean other RAID types also get screwed, and also that md "check" is also disturbed by CFQ (or disturbs CFQ, whatever). I reverted everything here to non-CFQ while the RAID did its resync (which fixed all issues immediately), and we went back to 2.6.16.x later for other reasons. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote: Did you look at "cat /proc/mdstat" ?? What sort of speed was the check running at? Around 44MB/s. I do use the following optimization, perhaps a bad idea if I want other processes to 'stay alive'? echo "Setting minimum resync speed to 200MB/s..." echo "This improves the resync speed from 2.1MB/s to 44MB/s" echo 20 > /sys/block/md0/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 > /sys/block/md1/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 > /sys/block/md2/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 > /sys/block/md3/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 > /sys/block/md4/md/sync_speed_min md RAID1 resync reacts *extremely* badly to CFQ. Just a data point, you may want to check on it. Might mean other RAID types also get screwed, and also that md "check" is also disturbed by CFQ (or disturbs CFQ, whatever). I reverted everything here to non-CFQ while the RAID did its resync (which fixed all issues immediately), and we went back to 2.6.16.x later for other reasons. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh I am using the AS scheduler; not CFQ. $ find /sys 2>/dev/null|grep -i scheduler|xargs -n1 cat noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] Justin. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Neil Brown wrote: On Tuesday March 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I ran a check on my SW RAID devices this morning. However, when I did so, I had a few lftp sessions open pulling files. After I executed the check, the lftp processes entered 'D' state and I could do 'nothing' in the process until the check finished. Is this normal? Should a check block all I/O to the device and put the processes writing to a particular device in 'D' state until it is finished? No, that shouldn't happen. The 'check' should notice any other disk activity and slow down if anything else is happening on the device. Did the check run to completion? And if so, did the 'lftp' start working normally again? Yes it did and the lftp did start working normally again. Did you look at "cat /proc/mdstat" ?? What sort of speed was the check running at? Around 44MB/s. I do use the following optimization, perhaps a bad idea if I want other processes to 'stay alive'? echo "Setting minimum resync speed to 200MB/s..." echo "This improves the resync speed from 2.1MB/s to 44MB/s" echo 20 > /sys/block/md0/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 > /sys/block/md1/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 > /sys/block/md2/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 > /sys/block/md3/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 > /sys/block/md4/md/sync_speed_min NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Neil Brown wrote: On Tuesday March 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I ran a check on my SW RAID devices this morning. However, when I did so, I had a few lftp sessions open pulling files. After I executed the check, the lftp processes entered 'D' state and I could do 'nothing' in the process until the check finished. Is this normal? Should a check block all I/O to the device and put the processes writing to a particular device in 'D' state until it is finished? No, that shouldn't happen. The 'check' should notice any other disk activity and slow down if anything else is happening on the device. Did the check run to completion? And if so, did the 'lftp' start working normally again? Yes it did and the lftp did start working normally again. Did you look at cat /proc/mdstat ?? What sort of speed was the check running at? Around 44MB/s. I do use the following optimization, perhaps a bad idea if I want other processes to 'stay alive'? echo Setting minimum resync speed to 200MB/s... echo This improves the resync speed from 2.1MB/s to 44MB/s echo 20 /sys/block/md0/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md1/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md2/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md3/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md4/md/sync_speed_min NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote: Did you look at cat /proc/mdstat ?? What sort of speed was the check running at? Around 44MB/s. I do use the following optimization, perhaps a bad idea if I want other processes to 'stay alive'? echo Setting minimum resync speed to 200MB/s... echo This improves the resync speed from 2.1MB/s to 44MB/s echo 20 /sys/block/md0/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md1/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md2/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md3/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md4/md/sync_speed_min md RAID1 resync reacts *extremely* badly to CFQ. Just a data point, you may want to check on it. Might mean other RAID types also get screwed, and also that md check is also disturbed by CFQ (or disturbs CFQ, whatever). I reverted everything here to non-CFQ while the RAID did its resync (which fixed all issues immediately), and we went back to 2.6.16.x later for other reasons. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh I am using the AS scheduler; not CFQ. $ find /sys 2/dev/null|grep -i scheduler|xargs -n1 cat noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] noop [anticipatory] Justin. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote: Did you look at cat /proc/mdstat ?? What sort of speed was the check running at? Around 44MB/s. I do use the following optimization, perhaps a bad idea if I want other processes to 'stay alive'? echo Setting minimum resync speed to 200MB/s... echo This improves the resync speed from 2.1MB/s to 44MB/s echo 20 /sys/block/md0/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md1/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md2/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md3/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md4/md/sync_speed_min md RAID1 resync reacts *extremely* badly to CFQ. Just a data point, you may want to check on it. Might mean other RAID types also get screwed, and also that md check is also disturbed by CFQ (or disturbs CFQ, whatever). I reverted everything here to non-CFQ while the RAID did its resync (which fixed all issues immediately), and we went back to 2.6.16.x later for other reasons. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
On Thursday March 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you look at cat /proc/mdstat ?? What sort of speed was the check running at? Around 44MB/s. I do use the following optimization, perhaps a bad idea if I want other processes to 'stay alive'? echo Setting minimum resync speed to 200MB/s... echo This improves the resync speed from 2.1MB/s to 44MB/s echo 20 /sys/block/md0/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md1/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md2/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md3/md/sync_speed_min echo 20 /sys/block/md4/md/sync_speed_min Yes, well You told it to use up to 200MB/s and the drives are only delivering 44MB/s, so they will be taking nearly all of the available bandwidth. You shouldn't be too surprised if other things suffer. NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
On Tuesday March 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I ran a check on my SW RAID devices this morning. However, when I did so, > I had a few lftp sessions open pulling files. After I executed the check, > the lftp processes entered 'D' state and I could do 'nothing' in the > process until the check finished. Is this normal? Should a check block > all I/O to the device and put the processes writing to a particular device > in 'D' state until it is finished? No, that shouldn't happen. The 'check' should notice any other disk activity and slow down if anything else is happening on the device. Did the check run to completion? And if so, did the 'lftp' start working normally again? Did you look at "cat /proc/mdstat" ?? What sort of speed was the check running at? NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
On Tuesday March 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I ran a check on my SW RAID devices this morning. However, when I did so, I had a few lftp sessions open pulling files. After I executed the check, the lftp processes entered 'D' state and I could do 'nothing' in the process until the check finished. Is this normal? Should a check block all I/O to the device and put the processes writing to a particular device in 'D' state until it is finished? No, that shouldn't happen. The 'check' should notice any other disk activity and slow down if anything else is happening on the device. Did the check run to completion? And if so, did the 'lftp' start working normally again? Did you look at cat /proc/mdstat ?? What sort of speed was the check running at? NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
I ran a check on my SW RAID devices this morning. However, when I did so, I had a few lftp sessions open pulling files. After I executed the check, the lftp processes entered 'D' state and I could do 'nothing' in the process until the check finished. Is this normal? Should a check block all I/O to the device and put the processes writing to a particular device in 'D' state until it is finished? Justin. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)
I ran a check on my SW RAID devices this morning. However, when I did so, I had a few lftp sessions open pulling files. After I executed the check, the lftp processes entered 'D' state and I could do 'nothing' in the process until the check finished. Is this normal? Should a check block all I/O to the device and put the processes writing to a particular device in 'D' state until it is finished? Justin. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
