In case someone is interested, I'm answering to myself ...
There has been a change between mdadm 2.5 and mdadm 2.6 when creating an
array with superblock v1.0 and using an internal bitmap.
In my configuration, the result is an internal bitmap much bigger in 2.6
than in 2.5. And it seems when
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Hubert Verstraete:
Hi All,
My RAID 5 array is running slow.
I've made a lot of test to find out where this issue is laying.
I've come to the conclusion that once the array is created with mdadm
2.6.x (up to 2.6.4), whatever the kernel you run, whatever the
Hi All,
My RAID 5 array is running slow.
I've made a lot of test to find out where this issue is laying.
I've come to the conclusion that once the array is created with mdadm
2.6.x (up to 2.6.4), whatever the kernel you run, whatever the mdadm you
use to re-assemble the array, the array's
Quoting Hubert Verstraete [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi All,
My RAID 5 array is running slow.
I've made a lot of test to find out where this issue is laying.
I've come to the conclusion that once the array is created with mdadm
2.6.x (up to 2.6.4), whatever the kernel you run, whatever the mdadm
you
