Hello,
...
What do you think, Neil?
I don't know what Neil thinks, but I have never liked the performance
implications of RAID-4, could you say a few words about why 4 rather than
5? My one test with RAID-4 showed the parity drive as a huge bottleneck, and
seeing that practice followed
Hello, list,
I think, this is generally hardware error, but looks like software problem
too.
At this point there is no dirty data in memory!
Cheers,
Janos
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /]# cmp -b /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1
/dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 differ: byte 68881481729, line 308395510 is 301 M-A 74
[EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: Brian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 1:25 AM
Subject: Help Please! mdadm hangs when using nbd or gnbd
Hail to the Great Linux RAID Gurus! I humbly seek any assistance you
can offer.
I am building
Ahh, i almost forget!
The mdadm is sometimes drop cannot allocate memory and next try
segfault
when i try -G --bitmap=internal on 2TB arrays!
And after segfault, the full raid is stops...
Cheers,
Janos
I think i found the bug, its me. :-)
Today it happens again, and i see, i have
--cut--
I plan to resize (grow) one raid4 array.
1. stop the array.
2. resize the partition on all disks to fit the maximum size.
The approach is currently not supported. It would need a change to
mdadm to find the old superblock and relocate it to the new end of the
- Original Message -
From: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: raid 4, and bitmap.
On Friday February 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello, list, Neil,
I try to add bitmaps
- Original Message -
From: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: Raid 4 resize, raid0 limit question
On Friday February 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello, list,
I plan
- Original Message -
From: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: raid 4, and bitmap.
- Original Message -
From: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-raid
- Original Message -
From: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: where is the spare drive? :-)
On Monday January 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5. The question
Why shows sdh2
Hello, list,
I have found one interesting issue.
I use 4 disk node with NBD, and the concentrator distributes the load equal
thanks to 32KB chunksize RAID0 inside.
At this time i am working on the system upgrade, and found one interesting
issue, and possibly one bottleneck on the system.
The
- Original Message -
From: Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Linux RAID Mailing List linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: raid5 read performance
1. it is not good to use so many disks in one raid
- Original Message -
From: Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: raid5 read performance
NBD for network block device ?
Yes. :-)
why do u use it ?
I need only one big
- Original Message -
From: Marc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: where is the spare drive? :-)
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 00:26:58 +0100, JaniD++ wrote
Hello, list,
I found something
Hello, list,
I try to test raidreconf utility on my spare drives in my disk nodes.
(i want to convert raid0 chunksize 32K to 1M)
Why happenning this?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] raid-converter]# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid5] [multipath] [faulty]
md20 : active raid0
- Original Message -
From: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: RAID5 resync question BUGREPORT!
On Monday December 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message
- Original Message -
From: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
On Sunday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
- Original Message -
From: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 1:57 AM
Subject: Re: RAID5 resync question BUGREPORT!
On Thursday November 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Now i trying
- Original Message -
From: Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
JaniD++ wrote:
But the cat /dev/md31 /dev/null (RAID0, the sum of 4 nodes
And the system is crashed.
no ping reply, no netconsole error logging, no panic and reboot.
Thanks,
Janos
- Original Message -
From: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: RAID5
the bitmap-create and bitmap update.)
My data lost finally, really minimal. :-)
Cheers,
Janos
- Original Message -
From: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: RAID5 resync question
I know, it is some chance to leave some incorrect parity information on
the
array, but may be corrected by next write.
Or it may not be corrected by the next write. The parity-update
algorithm assumes that the parity is correct.
Hmm.
If it works with parity-update algorithm, instead of
One time while my array is really rebuild one disk (paralel normal
workload), i see, the new drive in the array *only* writes.
i means with better handling of half-synced array is this:
If read request comes to the ?% synced array, and if the read is on the
synced half, only need to
Hello,
But the cat /dev/md31 /dev/null (RAID0, the sum of 4 nodes) only
makes ~450-490 Mbit/s, and i dont know why
Somebody have an idea? :-)
Try increasing the read-ahead setting on /dev/md31 using 'blockdev'.
network block devices are likely to have latency
1:09 3 xfs_fsr
6955 root 15 0 1588 10836 S 2.7 0.0 0:56 2 nbd-client
- Original Message -
From: Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0
24 matches
Mail list logo
