Hi,
I have setup a raid0 on two u2w SCSI disks, but the performance, as reported
by tiobench and bonnie++, is inferior of a single (the faster) disk; can this
be because the two disks are different or the filesystem is reiserfs?
I run the tests in multiuser, without user activity, but under X
On Thursday February 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Sorry about the delay in replying, but as this mail was not addressed
to me ("neilb" did not appear in headers) it didn't get a very high
priority in my mail reading. Please, when sending email to me,
address it to me so my filtering can work
Neil Brown wrote:
>
> On Sunday February 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Neil Brown wrote:
> > > > OK, this time I really want to know how this should be handled.
> > >
> > > Well. it "should" be handled by re-writing various bits of raid code
> > > to make it all work more easily, but without d
> In the raidtab file where you describe the raid0 arrays, make sure to
> say:
>
> persistent-superblock = 1
Yep, it was already set to 1 (sorry, forgot to write that in my original post)
Cheers, Suad
--
>
> (or whatever the correct systax is). The default is 0 (== no) for
> back compat I
On Sunday February 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Linux 2.4.1/RAIDtools2 0.90
>
> I have 4 ide disks which have identical partition layouts.
> RAID is working successfully, its even booting RAID1.
>
> I created a RAID5 set on a set of 4 partitions, which works OK.
> I then destroyed that set an
On Sunday February 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> > > OK, this time I really want to know how this should be handled.
> >
> > Well. it "should" be handled by re-writing various bits of raid code
> > to make it all work more easily, but without doing that it "could" be
> > hand
Linux 2.4.1/RAIDtools2 0.90
I have 4 ide disks which have identical partition layouts.
RAID is working successfully, its even booting RAID1.
I created a RAID5 set on a set of 4 partitions, which works OK.
I then destroyed that set and updated it so it was 2x RAID0
partitions (so I can mirror th
Neil Brown wrote:
> > OK, this time I really want to know how this should be handled.
>
> Well. it "should" be handled by re-writing various bits of raid code
> to make it all work more easily, but without doing that it "could" be
> handled by marking the partitions as hold raid componenets (0XFE
